Hi Gilles, > > Exactly: If a user does not care about the callback, he shouldn't even have > to look at the second constructor, even less wonder about the consequence of > setting it to null. > Well, it could also be argued that default parameters are *evil* (I do think they are), and that explicitly setting a parameter to null forces the user to think about his decision. However, our views are more on the philosophical plane, and I think we could argue for ages without coming to a conclusion... Therefore...
> > No ticket is necessary (IMHO). I'm fine with just reverting, then adding the > precondition block: it will clearly express that a callback *is* necessary. > [Thanks for spotting that bug.] > ... reverted to previous implementation of constructors (with additional check for null) in r1353386. Thanks for reviewing this commit which was not in line with the remainder of Commons-Math3. Please note that at some point, I will have to take a look to iterative linear solvers, where (as far as I remember) I allowed the specification of a null preconditioner (sorry, sorry, sorry!). Amitiés, Sébastien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
