[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-487?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12984707#action_12984707
]
Phil Steitz commented on MATH-487:
----------------------------------
Can we please take this general discussion to the mailing list?
If is easier to respond to the various points made there and the scope of this
- important - discussion is well beyond this issue.
> 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.
