Re: patch for getXXX methods

Dave Cramer wrote:
> Attached, with -cb this time

Thanks. Comments:

How you handle bytes and shorts is inconsistent with how you handle
longs; we should consistently do it one way or the other. Since you lose
precision going via a double, that probably means the BigInteger approach.

The shared conversion/rangecheck logic should be done once in a helper
function rather than duplicated -- call the helper with appropriate
range info and cast the result.

I still don't like silently discarding any fractional portion of the value.

-O