On Thursday 26 September 2002 02:02 pm, Henri Yandell wrote: > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Berin Loritsch wrote: > > > Its probably a pity that we didn't agree a uniform approach to this, > > > but its too late now. The priority is to document what we have > > > correctly. > > > > > > Stephen > > I don't think this is a problem. The too late now. If we go from > quiet->NPE it's a problem, but if we go from NPE->quiet behaviour then > it's merely seen as strengthening the API, no one can or should be > dependent on the NPE behaviour. > > Hen Actually, I strongly disagree with that. Going from NPE to quiet is a major change in behavior. Nulls will be treated as values, when they are not.
And I wouldn't call it a strengthening of the API. It's a weakening of the preconditions. In any case, as I'm looking through right now, at least a few of the methods that claim not to thow NPEs, do. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
