Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 42176 invoked from network); 27 Dec 2002 11:15:59 -0000 Received: from exchange.sun.com (192.18.33.10) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Dec 2002 11:15:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 24911 invoked by uid 97); 27 Dec 2002 11:17:24 -0000 Delivered-To: qmlist-jakarta-archive-commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 24878 invoked by uid 97); 27 Dec 2002 11:17:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 24866 invoked by uid 98); 27 Dec 2002 11:17:22 -0000 X-Antivirus: nagoya (v4218 created Aug 14 2002) X-Authentication-Warning: ariel.ports.se: Host gatekeeper01.ports.se [193.14.90.12] claimed to be Dev01 Message-ID: <200212271216480959.007B9CF5@smtp.ports.se> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.30.00.00 (4) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2002 12:16:48 +0100 From: "Ola Berg" To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: Re: [lang] what about mutable BigInteger etc. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On 2002-12-27 at 03:59 Henri Yandell wrote: > On Fri, 27 Dec 2002, Ola Berg wrote: > > I think the word "mutable" leads wrong. The number in itself isn't > > mutable, it is the object that is told to hold a completely different > > number. > > Doesn't this depend on the implementation? Why wouldn't they be > implemented as Numbers themselves and not containers? They could and should be implemented as Numbers, so that you can use them= as Numbers in any generic calculation, just like a variable. But they are= not _numbers_. Note the locase, I am talking about the conceptual object here, not the= implementation object. A number is a literal in the language, and a fixed= entity in the abstract world of mathemathics, and you cannot change 2 to= become 3. Saying that a number is mutable is whacky. Saying that the contents of a= container can be changed is sane. No other changes in implementation or how the object can be used is= implied. Just wanting to make the name resemble the (my ;-) mind I think would be less confusing with LongValueHolder than MutableLong,= since a value itself cannot be altered. > MutableXxx matches the (hidden) Sun API in java.math. Good they let that be hidden. It is a very funny name to me. But really no big deal. I think that most people will understand what we= mean. My pro-argument in favor of calling it MutableLong would in fact be that I= think it is a _funny_ name. But I might have a strange sense of humour. > Just my tuppence, Me to. /O -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional commands, e-mail: