On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> The unwritten consensus here for the last few months seems to be: there
> are different points of view which cannot be reconciled. So we gave up
> on achieving consistency and everyone does as he sees fit.
>
> Thomas and Sébastien, please do
Le 10/02/2012 11:23, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:58:30AM +0100, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>> 2012/2/10 Thomas Neidhart :
>>> On 02/10/2012 09:58 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
Hello,
>
> I strongly prefer _not_ to have the (unchecked) exceptions in
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:08:12AM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 10:58 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> > Here is a recent thread on this issue (as you can see, this thread was
> > caused by a faulty commit from me...).
> > Best regards,
> > Sébastien
> >
> > http://mail-archives.apa
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:58:30AM +0100, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 2012/2/10 Thomas Neidhart :
> > On 02/10/2012 09:58 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I strongly prefer _not_ to have the (unchecked) exceptions in the
> >>> signature.
> >>> [Arguments mentioned n
On 02/10/2012 10:58 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Here is a recent thread on this issue (as you can see, this thread was
> caused by a faulty commit from me...).
> Best regards,
> Sébastien
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201201.mbox/%3C20120113105913.GM6537%40dusk.harfan
Hi Thomas,
2012/2/10 Thomas Neidhart :
> On 02/10/2012 09:58 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I strongly prefer _not_ to have the (unchecked) exceptions in the signature.
>>> [Arguments mentioned numerous times in previous discussions...]
>>>
>> It's true it has been argued only recen
On 02/10/2012 09:58 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Hello,
>>
>> I strongly prefer _not_ to have the (unchecked) exceptions in the signature.
>> [Arguments mentioned numerous times in previous discussions...]
>>
> It's true it has been argued only recently. I was just wondering
> whether it might be
Hello,
>
> I strongly prefer _not_ to have the (unchecked) exceptions in the signature.
> [Arguments mentioned numerous times in previous discussions...]
>
It's true it has been argued only recently. I was just wondering
whether it might be worth configuring checkstyle so as to make it
complain abo
Hi.
> [...]
> What do you think?
No idea.
> @Exceptions: while working on the migration to the new exceptions in
> this package, I tried to stick to the rules from Phil/Luc:
>
> - add @throws clause to javadoc
> - add throws declaration to method signature
>
> for each individual exception t
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 08:33:44PM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been working on the exceptions in the stat.inference package and
>> have seen that all classes in this package follow the same scheme:
>>
>> - Interface for a statistical test
>> - Implementation of this single
On 5 February 2012 18:29, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 02/03/2012 10:33 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 08:33:44PM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have been working on the exceptions in the stat.inference package and
>>> have seen that all classes in this packa
On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 09:17:27PM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 02/05/2012 08:14 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > [Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying; in which case I did not get
> > it...]
>
> I think the confusion came from the fact that there are actually 2
> TestU
On 02/05/2012 08:14 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
[snip]
> [Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying; in which case I did not get
> it...]
I think the confusion came from the fact that there are actually 2
TestUtils classes in CM ;-)
Thomas
---
On 02/05/2012 08:14 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Maybe I'm mistaken but it seems that you think that the "...Test" classes in
> package "stat.inference" are somehow utilities for the CM unit tests (as is
> actually the case for the "TestUtils" class) or some base class for CM unit
> tests (?). That
On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 07:29:05PM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> On 02/03/2012 10:33 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 08:33:44PM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have been working on the exceptions in the stat.inference package and
> >> have seen that all c
On 02/03/2012 10:33 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 08:33:44PM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been working on the exceptions in the stat.inference package and
>> have seen that all classes in this package follow the same scheme:
>>
>> - Interface for a stati
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 08:33:44PM +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been working on the exceptions in the stat.inference package and
> have seen that all classes in this package follow the same scheme:
>
> - Interface for a statistical test
> - Implementation of this single interf
Hi,
I have been working on the exceptions in the stat.inference package and
have seen that all classes in this package follow the same scheme:
- Interface for a statistical test
- Implementation of this single interface
e.g.
ChiSquareTest
ChiSquareTestImpl
There was some effort in other pack
18 matches
Mail list logo
