> > + * If {@link #maxIterationCount} is set to this value, the number of
> > + * iterations will never cause {@link #converged(int,Pair,Pair>)}
> > + * to return {@code true}.
> > + */
> > + private static final int ITERATION_CHECK_DISABLED = -1;
>
> Could be I am misunderstanding the setup here, but I think this
> value may cause a problem with the positivity check below (i.e.
> using it will raise NotStrictlyPostiveException).
No, there is a check (and possible throw) only in the constructor that has
this parameter.
In the others, the value ITERATION_CHECK_DISABLED is directly assigned, and
the method "converged" checks "maxIterationCount" only if it is not equal
to ITERATION_CHECK_DISABLED.
> The test at the
> end does not test using this value. IIUC the code, a test that did
> would throw. Might be better to use Integer.MAX_VALUE or a boolean
> flag.
A boolean flag would be clearer, I agree, but there would have to be one per
object, whereas here we can get away with just one additional class
variable.
> Also, javadoc says negative values for maxIter disable. The
> code actually throws.
A negative value is just wrong, and it should raise an exception.
To disable, one has to create an instance with the other constructor. I'll
correct the doc.
Thanks,
Gilles
> [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
