Shreyas, would appreciate posting another patch, addressing both Dan's and my concerns. You are pretty close already...
Thanks for running the tests. Committers would appreciate posting this info along with all patches submitted. Satheesh Daniel John Debrunner wrote: > Satheesh Bandaram wrote: > > >Also, would it be better to write the code as: > > >value = new BigDecimal(Double.toString(theValue)); > > >to avoid creating a Double object? I suspect this code is used a lot > >(when there are double values), so could save time. > > Another issue with the change is that there are other a handful of other > cases in the code where a double is converted directly into a > BigDecimal, I think these should be fixed as well, to be consistent. > I did a quick search for new.*BigDecimal to find them. > > Dan. >
