On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Steve Downey wrote:
> On Thursday 26 September 2002 02:02 pm, Henri Yandell wrote:
> >
> > 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.
I don't see how it is a major change in behaviour. It in no way modifies
the way a user would be using the API, unless I'm living in a perfect
world where people wouldn't link functionality to the throwing of an
NPE...
Whereas the other direction, I can see people happily throwing in null's,
then we change the library and suddenly their systems fall over. That's
what I class a major API change.
NPE -> quiet shouldn't break anything using the API unless they're being
very silly....
Hen
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
