Henri Yandell wrote:
The constructor for MutableNumber is odd.
It's
a) Empty, so possible to have a MutableNumber without a value yet.
b) package-scoped, so only we can extend it.
I'm not sure if there are good uses for a), but b) seems like something we
don't need to do.
I guess I didn't think that anyone would want to create a MutableNumber,
they would opt for the more specific MutableInteger, MutableFloat, etc.
But if that's not the case, then the package scoping is too restrictive and
should be changed to public. The default (empty) constructor doesn't
make sense to me either, maybe it was just an oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
