Re: [numbers] Code blocks in test methods

> (2) Why not refactor and pull-out methods? This then forces you to _name_ > the methods, instead of the above (anonymous blocks vs. commented blocks.) I did not pull out the code sections into separate methods because I had no intention of re-structuring the whole class. I only wanted to fix a

Re: [gsoc] Weekly meeting tomorrow

Hi. Le mer. 12 juin 2019 à 21:34, Alex Herbert a écrit : > > Time for a weekly meeting. > > Thursday UTC +4. I won't be present at 6 PM (Brussels time). > > https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2019=6=13=16=0=0=136=224=265=1249=1860=1800 > >

Re: [lang] ArrayUtils.addFirst(T[], T)?

I’d support adding both. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:09 PM James Carman wrote: > I like it. Seems like a logical thing to do. Another idea would be adding > at an arbitrary index. > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:04 PM Gary Gregory > wrote: > > > Hi All: > > > > We have

Re: [lang] ArrayUtils.addFirst(T[], T)?

I like it. Seems like a logical thing to do. Another idea would be adding at an arbitrary index. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 5:04 PM Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > We have org.apache.commons.lang3.ArrayUtils.add(T[], T). > > WDYT about adding a method that adds the element at the beginning of

[lang] ArrayUtils.addFirst(T[], T)?

Hi All: We have org.apache.commons.lang3.ArrayUtils.add(T[], T). WDYT about adding a method that adds the element at the beginning of the new array instead of the end? Gary

Re: [gsoc] Weekly meeting tomorrow

Time for a weekly meeting. Thursday UTC +4. https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2019=6=13=16=0=0=136=224=265=1249=1860=1800 Here’s a preliminary agenda: -

Re: [daemon] release plans

On 12/06/2019 14:09, Gary Gregory wrote: > Hi All: > > I am pleased to see renewed activity in Commons Daemon. > > Are there any release thoughts? https://commons.markmail.org/thread/qklsh7jg3qwo2uf3 Mark - To unsubscribe,

[daemon] release plans

Hi All: I am pleased to see renewed activity in Commons Daemon. Are there any release thoughts? Gary

Re: [numbers] Code blocks in test methods

I've used code blocks in this style in the past but... (1) It is helpful to add a // comment for each block, otherwise, it feels anonymous and weird to me. (2) Why not refactor and pull-out methods? This then forces you to _name_ the methods, instead of the above (anonymous blocks vs. commented

Re: [numbers] Code blocks in test methods

Sorry, I messed up the link to the pull request: https://github.com/apache/commons-numbers/pull/36 On 6/12/19 3:00 PM, Heinrich Bohne wrote: I have been asked to request some feedback on this pull request: https://github.com/apache/commons-numbers/pull/36– specifically, about the introduction

[numbers] Code blocks in test methods

I have been asked to request some feedback on this pull request: https://github.com/apache/commons-numbers/pull/36– specifically, about the introduction of code blocks in the commit "NUMBERS-100: Reduce scope of local variables". I had the idea with the code blocks when I wanted to add a test to