[geos-devel] [] vs at()

[Yury A. Bychkov]

Yes, [] should work fine. I'll do the changes as soon as I can.

Yury

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Ramsey" <pramsey at refractions.net>
To: <geos-devel at geos.refractions.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [geos-devel] [] vs at()


> Yury, do you concur? If so, globally commit that change ASAP.
> Thanks, Paul
>
> Martin Davis wrote:
> >>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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > geos-devel mailing list
> > geos-devel at geos.refractions.net
> > http://geos.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
> >
>
>
> --
>        __
>       /
>       | Paul Ramsey
>       | Refractions Research
>       | Email: pramsey at refractions.net
>       | Phone: (250) 885-0632
>       \_
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geos-devel mailing list
> geos-devel at geos.refractions.net
> http://geos.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
>
>