+1 for you to go ahead and put something in. We can pull if it feels
that everything else is ready and Pair et al are not there yet.
Hen
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:28 AM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> On 4 March 2011 18:35, Matt Benson wrote:
>> I agree that it would be nice to do whatever we're g
On 4 March 2011 18:35, Matt Benson wrote:
> I agree that it would be nice to do whatever we're going to do
> quickly, and ship with *something*. On the other hand, I don't want
> to ship the existing class without consensus on design, only to give
> ourselves (and users) headaches trying to repla
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple: "a 2-tuple is called a
> > pair". Not necessarily authoritative, but amusing nevertheless.
> >
> > Another interesting concept mentioned
On 2011-03-04, Matt Benson wrote:
> Another interesting concept mentioned in this article is the
> summarized by the statement "Another way of formalizing tuples is as
> nested ordered pairs." I would argue that this is the only efficient
> way to formally represent an n-tuple using Java generics
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
[SNIP]
> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple: "a 2-tuple is called a
> pair". Not necessarily authoritative, but amusing nevertheless.
>
> Another interesting concept mentioned in this article is the
> summarized by the statement "Another wa
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Adrian Crum <
> adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 on the Association interface.
>>
>> The Tuple interface looks like a Collection, even more so when it expands
>> to more than two elements.
>>
>
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Adrian Crum <
adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
> +1 on the Association interface.
>
> The Tuple interface looks like a Collection, even more so when it expands
> to more than two elements.
>
Not quite, because you can only type a collection as Collection,
+1 on the Association interface.
The Tuple interface looks like a Collection, even more so when it
expands to more than two elements.
-Adrian
On 3/4/2011 11:24 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
Can we talk about the class name and use cases?
For me a pair evokes similarity: a pair of shoes, a pair of
Can we talk about the class name and use cases?
For me a pair evokes similarity: a pair of shoes, a pair of hands, a pair of
coordinates. You get the idea. Having a Pair.of(name, dog) reads like
nonsense to me. A Map.Entry.of(name, dog) I understand, same for an
Association.of(name, dog) (I cannot
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:41 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> I now have authoristion from OpenGamma to discuss adding a Pair class
> to [lang] based on our internal classes. If necessary a CCLA can be
> signed, although since we are not necessarily importing the OpenGamma
> classes as is and I'd be
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
[SNIP]
> I want to change the release style of Lang - I want to release every
> couple of issues once we get Lang 3.0 out. Or every month. I want
> 3.0.68 to exist :) Missing the 3.0 date shouldn't be an issue at all
> unless it's a backwards c
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> I now have authoristion from OpenGamma to discuss adding a Pair class
> to [lang] based on our internal classes. If necessary a CCLA can be
> signed, although since we are not necessarily importing the OpenGamma
> classes as is and I'd be
I now have authoristion from OpenGamma to discuss adding a Pair class
to [lang] based on our internal classes. If necessary a CCLA can be
signed, although since we are not necessarily importing the OpenGamma
classes as is and I'd be writing code in [lang3] with my Apache hat
on, the CCLA might not
13 matches
Mail list logo
