commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [math] Questions about the linear package
Date Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:53:09 GMT
Adding methods to implementations is fine, but not to interfaces - how would

that work for client implementations?  And everywhere in sight inside of the

linear package you have handles on RealVector and RealMatrix, so you'd
have to cast to concrete implementation to get access to these new
methods...

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think that Luc was referring to non-backwards compatible changes.  Adding
> methods should not be in this category, but removing them would be.
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.mannix@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Question about this: if RealVector is locked as an interface - no changes
> > until
> > 3.0 - and the Matrix and Vector interfaces have method signatures which
> > take
> > RealVector as an argument, how is adding new methods to an implementation
> > of RealVector (say AbstractRealVector) going to help anyone?
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message