On 11/05/2009, James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de> wrote:
> > James Carman wrote at Montag, 11. Mai 2009 13:17:
> >
> >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de>
> >> wrote:
> >>> I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In
> >>> this case it means more or less to include complete functor into
> >>> collections just for sake of no dependency. So, why had been functor
> >>> created at all?
> >>
> >> Functors can be used outside the context of collections.
> >
> > This is right, but it does not answer the question.
[I've not looked at this, so it may not make sense]
Perhaps the parts of collections that require functors could be moved
to the functor jar?
>
> It answers that one question. :) But seriously, functors can be very
> useful programming tools. I use them a LOT in my code. I think
> having a generic functors package is a very good idea.
>
> Also, with the "jar hell" issue, haven't we "fixed" that by deciding
> that any backward compatibility issues should cause us to jump major
> version numbers and thus change the package name?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
|