I'm happy to go with the 'fails "is a kind of"'. The real answer is
because Range.java was coded before Pair.java iirc :)
Range is quite possibly going to also have ranges that are unbound on
one of the sides. It also might need to supported negated Ranges, i.e.
the range is from -inf->lower-bound
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> 4) Stephen urged that we revisit StringUtils to see what else can move
>> to CharSequence.
>>
>> 5) Stephen recommended that CharSequenceUtils move into StringUtils.
>> This seems f
Yeah, I didn't stress the "will want a name change if made public"
enough in the comment higher up in the file. I wanted a style that
wasn't overlapping with the public StringUtils classes; that one is
sequenceToString more to keep in sync with the other methods than
because it's a good name.
It's
Note the .toString() on the end.
Hen
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Looking at:
>
> public static String right(CharSequence seq, int len)
>
> I wonder why it is not:
>
> public static CharSequence right(CharSequence seq, int len)
>
> You think that would break call
Joda-Time has an Interval class, are you suggesting we implement one like
it?
Gary
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Adrian Crum <
adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
> A range could also be viewed as an interval - in which case lowerBound and
> upperBound would make more sense. I imagine
A range could also be viewed as an interval - in which case lowerBound
and upperBound would make more sense. I imagine it depends on your
perspective, or your interpretation of what a "range" is.
-Adrian
On 3/17/2011 9:03 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
Why is a Range not a Pair?
Because... is it fa
Looking at:
public static String right(CharSequence seq, int len)
I wonder why it is not:
public static CharSequence right(CharSequence seq, int len)
You think that would break call sites is why. But when I look at the impl,
the last line is:
return StringUtils.subSequence(seq, seq.le
Why is a Range not a Pair?
Because... is it fails the "is a kind of" OOD test?
I could say that a range is a pair of bounds (an upper and lower bound.)
I could argue that Range should subclass Pair. The question is: why are we
NOT eating our own dog food?
Which then brings me to the names of th
Minor nit:
String sequenceToString(CharSequence cs)
should be:
String toString(CharSequence cs)
because the we do not need to add the method arg type to the method name. If
we did, we should use:
String charSequenceToString(CharSequence cs)
which I do not like.
Gary
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-scxml-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-vfs2 has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> 4) Stephen urged that we revisit StringUtils to see what else can move
> to CharSequence.
>
> 5) Stephen recommended that CharSequenceUtils move into StringUtils.
> This seems fair, CharSequenceUtils is never going to get a lot of
> methods
13 matches
Mail list logo
