commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <>
Subject RE: [lang] Divesting the commons.lang.math package
Date Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:02:15 GMT
> -- it is the foundation of a math library.

I have to disagree on this point. An application can use Fractions instead of a doubles, if
you can deal with the API usage compared to operators. This what we (in a different century,
when I worked for a Smalltalk vendor) did in Smalltalk for ALL non-integers, we used fractions
and precision was never lost. Neat trick when supported at the language level. 

In a similar vein, I've lost count as to how many times, I've re-invented Smalltalk's Association
class. Now that Java has Generics, I think I've finally settled on something reusable.

So I do not see Fraction as the foundation for anything really. It stands on its own nicely


> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> On Behalf Of Paul Benedict
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 15:25
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [lang] Divesting the commons.lang.math package
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Stephen Colebourne
> <> wrote:
> > Divest? I object to removing Fraction from [lang], as its a very core
> > concept tat is missing from the JDK. And thee are many users who
> would just
> > want Fraction and none of the rest of the [math] library.
> Having people to import Commons Math to just use Fraction is equal to
> people having to import Commons Lang to use Fraction. If that's all
> you want, you have to import something. Likewise, since I don't think
> this class is "missing" from the JDK, I don't think it deserves to
> stay in Commons Lang. It doesn't add to anything in the Java language
> -- it is the foundation of a math library.
> Paul
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message