On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 18:38:28 GMT, fabioromano1 <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> The cases in which the method throws correspond to the cases in which the > integer root is not defined. Yes, that's why it should be part of the definition: like in "the largest integer ..., if it exists; otherwise the result is undefined, and the method throws". Specified this way, one `@throws` clause for undefined r would be sufficient. The implementation can still generate different messages, but this is not part of the spec. > For the specification, the equivalence of the definition with the formula ... > makes sense only when the definition itself makes sense, i.e. only when the > method does not throw. IMO, this could be expressed more clearly as "when r is defined, it is equal to ..." or something similar. (As an aside, if R is taken as a subfield of C, the principal value of the nth root needs not be real, even in the case of odd n > 0. That's why I asked about the meaning of nth root here. And even "principal value" doesn't have a universally accepted definition, as it depends on the choice of the range for the "principal" phase angle of a complex number.) ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24898#discussion_r2223746548
