On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 11:02 +0200, Roland Weber wrote: > Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > > I would actually expect a IndexOutOfRangeExceptions in case of an > > invalid index. What if one passes -1 by mistake and gets the interceptor > > quietly appended to the list last? > > I see. Good point. > > > For the same reason I do not quite > > like the idea of using Integer.MAX_VALUE, but I have promised to myself > > to not get into API purity discussions with you. > > I don't like Integer.MAX_VALUE as a magic number either. > I wrote it only as an example in my JIRA comment, since > I would map everything beyond the end of the list to > the end of the list. If we define a single magic number, > it should be defined as a constant in our interface. > > How about mapping all positive values beyond the end to > the end of the list, but throwing an exception for > negatives? That avoids unexpected wrap-around behavior > near 0, but also avoids querying the size of the list > if all you want to do is adding something at the end: > > if (index < 0) > throw IndexOutOfBoundsException(...); > if (index > ...size()) > index = ...size(); > > cheers, > Roland >
Cool. Sounds reasonable to me. Cheers Oleg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
