[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12983765#action_12983765
]
Gilles commented on MATH-487:
-----------------------------
{quote}
[...] The first example above loses information, IMO. [....]
{quote}
Yes; that's why I propose to implement the last excerpt.
Note that the exception ideally has to report _what_ is going wrong; in the
first case, the problem is the value of the {{scale}} variable.
However I can agree that it is an implementation detail, so that at that point,
instead of duplicating the "throw" statement we could just do a "break", and
only report the "infiniteness" failure. Is that OK?
{quote}
[...] I think that ConvergenceException is not a bad abstraction. [...]
{quote}
I agree. However, I can also argue that it is an implementation detail; as you
said, the important thing
{quote}
[...] is that the fraction is diverging to infinity [...]
{quote}
and I think that this problem is better represented by the
{{NotFiniteNumberException}} abstraction (which also specifies whether the
problem is "infinity" or "NaN").
> Deprecate "ConvergenceException" in MATH_2_X and remove it in trunk
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MATH-487
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-487
> Project: Commons Math
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Gilles
> Assignee: Gilles
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.2, 3.0
>
>
> The checked "ConvergenceException" should be deprecated.
> An example usage is in class {{ContinuedFraction}} (package {{util}}), at
> line 153:
> {noformat}
> if (scale <= 0) { // Can't scale
> throw new
> ConvergenceException(LocalizedFormats.CONTINUED_FRACTION_INFINITY_DIVERGENCE,
> x);
> }
> {noformat}
> I think that it should be replaced by a more specific (and unchecked)
> exception that reflects the exact low-level problem:
> {noformat}
> if (scale <= 0) { // Can't scale
> throw new NotStrictlypositiveException(scale);
> }
> {noformat}
> A few lines below that, there is:
> {noformat}
> if (infinite) {
> // Scaling failed
> throw new
> ConvergenceException(LocalizedFormats.CONTINUED_FRACTION_INFINITY_DIVERGENCE,
> x);
> }
> {noformat}
> So it seems that it is not necessary to throw an exception at the place where
> the test on "scale" fails; instead we could have:
> {noformat}
> infinite = true;
> if (scale <= 0) { // Can't scale
> break;
> }
> {noformat}
> and let the check on "infinite" throw the exception:
> {noformat}
> if (infinite) {
> // Scaling failed
> throw new
> NotFiniteNumberException(LocalizedFormats.CONTINUED_FRACTION_DIVERGENCE,
> Double.POSITIVE_INFINITY, x);
> }
> {noformat}
> As shown in the above excerpt, we could also replace two {{enum}}:
> * CONTINUED_FRACTION_INFINITY_DIVERGENCE
> * CONTINUED_FRACTION_NAN_DIVERGENCE
> with a single one:
> * CONTINUED_FRACTION_DIVERGENCE
> because the other bit of information (infinity vs NaN) is already given by
> the first parameter of the message.
> What do you think of these changes?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
