Ok, you're right. On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:19 PM, Wang Weijun <weijun.w...@oracle.com> wrote:
> I hope we can restrict the code change to what the bug description is > about. IMHO this bug should only include cleanup and introduce no obvious > behavior change. > > Any other fix can go to another bug. > > --Max > > > On Nov 13, 2014, at 08:57, Otávio Gonçalves de Santana < > otavioj...@java.net> wrote: > > > > But this class is an Exception, doesn't make sense an exception get > another > > Exception. > > IMHO: I prefer this way > > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Ulf Zibis <ulf.zi...@cosoco.de> wrote: > > > >> Hi Otávio, > >> I now think you could replace > >> if (!expected.isEmpty()) > >> with > >> assert !expected.isEmpty(); > >> > >> If expected ever would be empty, the only thing which happens is, that a > >> "'" is missing in a message which anyway doesn't make sense without > >> arguments. > >> > >> -Ulf > >> > >> > ...... -- Otávio Gonçalves de Santana blog: http://otaviosantana.blogspot.com.br/ twitter: http://twitter.com/otaviojava site: *http://about.me/otaviojava <http://about.me/otaviojava>* 55 (11) 98255-3513
