[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-60?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16360583#comment-16360583
 ] 

Eric Barnhill edited comment on NUMBERS-60 at 2/12/18 10:53 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------

This is actually a broader issue, there are multiple references to NaN in the 
javadoc that need to be altered. EDIT: actually the title of the issue reflects 
this fine.


was (Author: ericbarnhill):
This is actually a broader issue, there are multiple references to NaN in the 
javadoc that need to be altered.

> Check Javadoc with respect to NaN
> ---------------------------------
>
>                 Key: NUMBERS-60
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-60
>             Project: Commons Numbers
>          Issue Type: Task
>          Components: complex
>            Reporter: Gilles
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: API, javadoc
>             Fix For: 1.0
>
>
> See e.g. the doc for method {{negate}}:
> {code}
> /**
>  * Returns a {@code Complex} whose value is {@code (-this)}.
>  * Returns {@code NaN} if either real or imaginary
>  * part of this complex number is {@code Double.NaN}.
>  *
>  * @return {@code -this}.
>  */
> public Complex negate() {
>     return new Complex(-real, -imaginary);
> }
> {code}
> The "NaN" advertized in the the Javadoc seems to refer to the {{Complex.NaN}} 
> field, but {{negate}} is able to construct instances for which the contract 
> of method {{equals(Object)}} will be broken.
> As a related issue, I would make the {{NaN}} field "private" (and rename it 
> "NAN" to avoid the CheckStyle warning); users who need to check for (any 
> combination of) NaN should use the {{isNaN()}} method.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)

Reply via email to