Alex, If you feel like it and have the time, you are welcome to check out the latest from CVS and submit a patch. Otherwise, I might get to it this weekend.
Thanks, Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Karasulu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:41 > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > Subject: RE: [codec] Binary BIT_n and BITS question. > > Hi, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > <snip/> > > > the question is, I think, what > > visibility should these fields have? I see several views, from strict to > > lax: > > > > (1) Make the fields private, there are implementation details. Let the > > unit tests duplicate similar declarations. While duplication is not OO > > it ensures that the tests /really/ can make the difference b/w expected > > and actual values. After all, if there was a bug in some bit > > declaration, the unit test might not find it. > > > > I think I like (1). > > Yes (1) sounds good to me too. I like the point you've made concerning > expected vs. actual values: if there is a mistake in a Binary BIT_n > value then the unit test case might be able to catch it presuming the > testcase does not make the same exact mistake. > > Alex > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
