[geos-devel] [] vs at()

[Martin Davis]

> Everyone, could we have some kind of decision on whether at() is a 
> requirement? Norman noted that there is a bounds-check in 
> at() which is 
> not there in []. Is this check required by the code, or not? 

My take on this is that using [] should be fine, in spite of the lack of bounds checking.  Since we're working from 
pretty well debugged Java code, we're pretty safe in assuming that the algorithms do not go zinging off the end of arrays.
(If they did, the Java code would report bounds exceptions - but it never does).

Martin Davis, Senior Technical Specialist
Vivid Solutions Inc.
Suite #1A-2328 Government Street   Victoria, B.C.   V8T 5G5
Phone: (250) 385 6040    Fax: (250) 385 6046
EMail: mbdavis at vividsolutions.com  Web: www.vividsolutions.com