On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 06:24:26AM -0800, Ted Dunning wrote: > Actually, I would still recommend checks. You may know what the code does > now, but you can't trust either yourself or somebody else in the future. > Better to do the checks.
I don't agree because in this case, the situation is akin to a bug. [And we don't introduce checks after each statement to ensure that the statement did what it should.] Those _private_ methods are there just to group a set of statements which are valid under the documented conditions. We should start to assume that the documentation could be wrong... [If it is, that's also a bug.] Regards, Gilles > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Gilles Sadowski < > gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > > > Then the answer would be: no > > check (since you know exactly what usage is made). > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
