[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-433?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12929398#action_12929398
]
Gilles commented on MATH-433:
-----------------------------
So, IIUC, you agree that the library is inconsistent. But you also don't wish
to trap overflow in floating point methods (to be on par with IEEE754).
The question then becomes: Why is it necessary to check for overflow in integer
methods?
We could either drop the checks everywhere, or we keep the inconsistency (and,
if not done already, someone should maybe write a word about it in the user
guide).
> Signal overflow by raising an exception
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: MATH-433
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-433
> Project: Commons Math
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Gilles
> Priority: Minor
>
> Referring to the ML thread (with subject "Factorial").
> Shouldn't Commons-Math always raise an exception when overflow is detected,
> including in cases where the Java language specification has decided to
> return infinity?
> It was argued, in the ML thread on "FunctionEvaluationException", that it was
> much better to raise an exception than to rely on special values to detect
> problems. I think that the same argument fits perfectly in this case.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
