On Oct 7, 2011, at 7:43 AM, Sébastien Brisard <sebastien.bris...@m4x.org> wrote:
>>
>> Not worth a long argument, but the reciprocal of a fraction is not exactly
>> the same concept as multiplicative inverse in a field. I would be happier
>> about living with that inconsistency than adding another noun/verb
>> inconsistency in the same class.
>>
>> Phil
>>
> Just for my own interest: if I understand correctly, reciprocal is
> specific to fractions? Is that correct.
Yes.
> I'm not sure I understood your last point. Do you suggest we keep
> what's already there: negate()/reciprocal()?
Yes, because "reciprocate" (the natural verb) makes no sense and "reciprocal"
is a standard term for the result.
> Thanks for these clarifications,
> Sébastien
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
