On Thu, 1 Feb 2018 10:41:58 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
On 1 February 2018 at 15:30, Gary Gregory
wrote:
> For example, (picking a made up example) this reads really well to
me:
> Pair.of(foo, bar) because that what you'd use in spok
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:59 AM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> On 1 February 2018 at 15:30, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > For example, (picking a made up example) this reads really well to me:
> > Pair.of(foo, bar) because that what you'd use in spoken English.
> >
> > OTOH, this does not read well to me
On 1 February 2018 at 15:30, Gary Gregory wrote:
> For example, (picking a made up example) this reads really well to me:
> Pair.of(foo, bar) because that what you'd use in spoken English.
>
> OTOH, this does not read well to me: Fraction.of(num, denum); this would be
> better: Fraction.from(num,
Hi All:
I like the "of" prefix but I think it might be odd to force the convention
for ALL factories. It might be an English language thing for me.
For example, (picking a made up example) this reads really well to me:
Pair.of(foo, bar) because that what you'd use in spoken English.
OTOH, this d
On Thu, 01 Feb 2018 13:59:13 +0100, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
IMHO, there are too many accessor and factory methods.
We should strive for a lean and consistent API.
For the factory methods, I suggest the "of" convention:
public static Complex ofCartesian(double re, double im)
public static Complex of
Hi.
IMHO, there are too many accessor and factory methods.
We should strive for a lean and consistent API.
For the factory methods, I suggest the "of" convention:
public static Complex ofCartesian(double re, double im)
public static Complex ofPolar(double abs, double arg)
And, as syntactic sug
