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: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
