RFR Re: [PATCH] 8178117: Add public state constructors for Int/Long/DoubleSummaryStatistics

[Chris Dennis]

Just to confirm this looks fine to me. From my point of view too much input validation would seem a little odd given that the implementation does nothing to protect itself from overflow in the first place.


> On Nov 1, 2017, at 1:21 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.sandoz at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 31 Oct 2017, at 16:46, joe darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>> In that case we need to double (sorry) down on the NaNs and include sum as well:
>>> 
>>> *   <li>{@code (min <= max && !isNaN(sum)) || (isNaN(min) && isNaN(max) && isNaN(sum))}
>> 
>> A more complete test for the numerical consistency conditions would be something like
>> 
>>   min <= sum/count  <= max
>> 
>> However, that would require a bit of thought due to potential round-off so this might not be worth the complexity trade-off. (If any of min, sum, and max were NaN, the comparisons would be false.)
>> 
> 
> Yes, my recollection from the discussions we concluded not to do such checks.
> 
> Paul.