[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-60?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16363750#comment-16363750
 ] 

Gilles commented on NUMBERS-60:
-------------------------------

I've just look back into history, to figure out that I raised the same question 
years ago.
Could you please add a comment in the code to the effect that the inconsistency 
between the math and the implementation is assumed (and the reason why it is so 
if you have it from the C99 specs)?  Thanks a lot.

> 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