You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to issues@commons.apache.org by "Eric Barnhill (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2018/02/12 10:53:00 UTC
[jira] [Commented] (NUMBERS-60) Check Javadoc with respect to NaN
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-60?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16360583#comment-16360583 ]
Eric Barnhill commented on NUMBERS-60:
--------------------------------------
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)