On 11/23/13, 11:31 PM, Sean Owen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> Are there any objections to changing the API sigs from foo(double[] values)
>>> to foo(double... values) ?
>> Yes. I am -0 for adding new methods that take varargs; -1 for
>> removing the double[] v
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 7:22 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Are there any objections to changing the API sigs from foo(double[] values)
>> to foo(double... values) ?
>
> Yes. I am -0 for adding new methods that take varargs; -1 for
> removing the double[] versions.
Phil note that foo(double... value
On 11/23/13, 10:45 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> When I use APIs like StatUtils.mean() I have to write:
>
> StatUtils.mean(new double[]{ var1, var2, var2});
>
> instead of:
>
> StatUtils.mean(var1, var2, var2);
>
> Are there any objections to changing the API sigs from foo(double[] values)
Hi All:
When I use APIs like StatUtils.mean() I have to write:
StatUtils.mean(new double[]{ var1, var2, var2});
instead of:
StatUtils.mean(var1, var2, var2);
Are there any objections to changing the API sigs from foo(double[] values)
to foo(double... values) ?
This would not be possible for A
