Just to give a heads up from the math group, I think we settled on the logic that math is dependent on lang, not the other way around. If anything, we will delegate to your implementations of various Array and Number Utils.

-Mark

_matthewHawthorne wrote:
I created a bug report and attached patches for:

ArrayUtils/ArrayUtilsTest

BooleanUtils/BooleanUtilsTest

NumberUtils/NumberUtilsTest

Here is the url:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21068

If these changes are well received, I'll make another quick patch for
primitive/object converters for all primitive array types.




On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 00:59, Stephen Colebourne wrote:


I agree that both methods should be added, but as they are array
manipulators I suggest patching ArayUtils. Then we can add other array
conversions for primitive numbers there too.
Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "_matthewHawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: [lang] NumberUtils minimum, maximum, and xor



While working on the xor patch, I encountered the need to create the
following method:

boolean[] toPrimitiveArray(Boolean[])

to avoid duplicating logic between handling primitive and object
booleans.

I made it private. But would it be a good public addition? Along with:

Boolean[] toObjectArray(boolean[])

Any thoughts or suggestions?




On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 15:40, Stephen Colebourne wrote:


NumberUtils is best for this.

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "_matthewHawthorne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 4:25 PM
Subject: RE: [lang] NumberUtils minimum, maximum, and xor



I have a path and test for xor(boolean[]) that I will submit for
BooleanUtils.

I can also submit a patch for min and max with parameters short[],
int[], long[], float[], and double[].  Would it make sense for this to
go into lang.NumberUtils or a new class in lang.math?




On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 02:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


I disagree. lang.math exists for very simple, common maths

operations.


Min/max is a good example of this. It should be extended to all

primitive


types.

A little duplication here is OK. (Note that a year ago I wouldn't

have


written this, but it makes more sense to me now)

Adding min(int[]) etc is also probably a good idea. It may be best

to


rename the methods to min and max to be compatable with [math]

(deprecating


as needed).

On the boolean question, we have a BooleanUtils to add xor() to. Do

you


have a patch/test available?

Stephen


from:    Gary Gregory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If we want to be consistent, we could deprecate [lang]'s min/max

and


point

to [math]. This would parallel nicely with c.lang for java.lang

and


c.math

for java.math. It does not seem right to add all primitive types

to


c.lang.NumberUtils if min/max routines are in c.math.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark R. Diggory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2003 15:18
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [lang] NumberUtils minimum, maximum, and xor

Just to note: we have moved somwhat along these lines in the the

commons


[math] sandbox component. Currently we have

o.a.c.m.stat.StatUtils:


double min(double[] doubleArr)
double max(double[] doubleArr)

available there.

-Mark Diggory

_matthewHawthorne wrote:

I have 2 observations:

(1) Currently, the following methods are in o.a.c.l.NumberUtils

int maximum(int a, int b, int c)
long maximum(long a, long b, long c)
int minimum(int a, int b, int c)
long minimum(long a, long b, long c)

I think it be more flexible to replace them with the following:

int minimum(int[] intArr)
int maximum(int[] intArr)
long minimum(long[] longArr)
long maximum(long[] longArr)

It also may be a good time to add any missing methods such as:

short minimum(short[] shortArr)
short maximum(short[] shortArr)
float minimum(float[] floatArr)
float maximum(float[] floatArr)
double minimum(double[] doubleArr)
double maximum(double[] doubleArr)

Any thoughts?


(2) After searching for an easy way to xor booleans, and not

finding


anything, I created a method:

boolean xor(boolean[] boolArr)

Would this be a good addition to NumberUtils?


---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, e-mail:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


For additional commands, e-mail:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to