commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: [lang] Why is a Range not a Pair?
Date Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:59:51 GMT
I'm happy to go with the 'fails "is a kind of"'. The real answer is
because was coded before iirc :)

Range is quite possibly going to also have ranges that are unbound on
one of the sides. It also might need to supported negated Ranges, i.e.
the range is from -inf->lower-bound & upper-bound->inf. One of the 3.0
feedback items was to move the translators over to a Range based API.


On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Gary Gregory <> wrote:
> Why is a Range not a Pair?
> Because... is it fails the "is a kind of" OOD test?
> I could say that a range is a pair of bounds (an upper and lower bound.)
> I could argue that Range should subclass Pair. The question is: why are we
> NOT eating our own dog food?
> Which then brings me to the names of the bounds for Range: minimum and
> maximum, which IMO should be lowerBound and upperBound.
> Thoughts?
> --
> Thank you,
> Gary

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

View raw message