Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
Thank you for reporting this.
Original comment by allain.lalonde
on 14 Jan 2010 at 7:44
Fixed in r923 as an optimization PBounds.add was not doing work when passed
PBounds was
"empty".
Original comment by allain.lalonde
on 14 Jan 2010 at 8:04
Original comment by allain.lalonde
on 14 Jan 2010 at 8:05
Original comment by heue...@gmail.com
on 18 Jan 2010 at 6:20
This Issue will be resolved in 2.0. No binary incompatible changes are allowed
until
2.0.
Original comment by allain.lalonde
on 9 Feb 2010 at 3:58
Technically, this wouldn't be a binary-incompatible API change, since no APIs
are
changed. It is a behavior change though, and whether or not we should do that
in a
.x release can be discussed.
Original comment by heue...@gmail.com
on 9 Feb 2010 at 4:46
No update on this issue in some time, would it be ok for me to apply this to
release-1.3-branch for Milestone-1.3.2?
Original comment by heue...@gmail.com
on 1 Nov 2011 at 7:18
See allain's comment in r970, at which he reverted r923.
Original comment by atdi...@gmail.com
on 1 Nov 2011 at 10:17
See allain's comment in r970, at which he reverted r923. Does this mean that he
had realized some contract change that shouldn't go into a point release?
Original comment by atdi...@gmail.com
on 1 Nov 2011 at 10:18
I wouldn't say that it is a contract change, since the PBounds javadoc doesn't
make any comment on this situation, other than to say that isEmpty() doesn't
necessarily mean that the bounds are empty.
Original comment by heue...@gmail.com
on 2 Nov 2011 at 3:40
I agree it doesn't sound like a contract change. His comment seemed to suggest
some clients were broken by the change:
"Reverting r923 since it was a breaking change. It will need to be redone in
2.0.
Seems that some apps were making use of this behaviour."
Original comment by atdi...@gmail.com
on 4 Nov 2011 at 4:17
Original comment by heue...@gmail.com
on 26 Nov 2013 at 9:11
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
jxb...@gmail.com
on 14 Jan 2010 at 7:27