RFC 6910473: BigInteger negative bit length, value range, and future prospects

[Dmitry Nadezhin]

Thank you, Paul.
I tried to combine your and Joe's suggestions in the updated WebRev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/6910473/webrev.2/

  -Dima


On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.sandoz at oracle.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I took a look at the patch, but i am not an expert in this area.
>
> On BigInteger:
>
>   99  * @implNote
>  100  * BigInteger constructors and operations throw {@code
> ArithmeticException} when
>  101  * the result is out of the supported range. The supported range in
> JDK 8 is
>  102  * -2<sup>{@code Integer.MAX_VALUE}</sup> to
>  103  * 2<sup>{@code Integer.MAX_VALUE}</sup>, exclusive.
>
> I suggest changing to:
>
> @implNote
> BigInteger constructors and operations throw {@code ArithmeticException}
> when
> the result is out of the supported range of  -2<sup>{@code
> Integer.MAX_VALUE}</sup>
> (exclusive) to 2<sup>{@code Integer.MAX_VALUE}</sup> (exclusive).
>
> I don't think it is worth declaring @throws ArithmeticException for all
> relevant constructors and operations. This is likely to be noise for most
> people and the implNote is sufficient.
>
> Paul.
>
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 2:27 AM, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhalter at oracle.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ping!
> >
> > This proposal could use more comments, not to mention review(s).
> >
> >
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2013-September/021264.html
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > On Oct 3, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
> >
> >> I have reviewed this proposed change a couple of times in its current
> form and it looks good to me.
> >>
> >> It would be good to see some comments about the general concept from
> BigInt cognoscenti, and from (a) Reviewer(s) as concerns the @implNote
> addition as well as the new ArithmeticExceptions added at several points in
> the javadoc.
> >
>
>