> > > That's true we didn't. However (see my last message), this is really > of little consequence, and I didn't really want to get into a new > "to-serialize-or-not-to-serialize-that-s-the-question" endless debate. > I was the one who initially defended explicit conversion as opposed to > autoboxing, so you need not convince me. I guess most IDEs would > signal this auto-boxing. Can we assume on this specific case that we > are adults who know what they are doing? Again, this is just to build > the message of an exception, so the code virtually ends here. > I'm not familiar with -1ing a commit, I think I have to revert it > (could you confirm on that?). I'm happy to, but please find a > consensus with Gilles then, and I'm very happy to line up with the > outcome of your discussions.
I don't see why there should be a consensus to remove something that was never there in the first place. The vast majority of such exception instantiations do not perform explicit conversion; so I'd be inclined to think that there should be a consensus to change that. Best regards, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
