OK don't want to push on this last bit too much, but I still see a small concern here.
I think it will be error-prone to call this method size(). On Vector, I would strongly expect that this tells me the logical number of elements of the vector -- which is its cardinality. This is what seeing methods like List.size() trains one to expect. It's not that though, and, right off the bat we already see a bug caused by this. One option is renaming. I might further ask, while we're at it, whether we need to expose both values. When do I need to know the number of non-zero elements, separately from any other operation? To give another example, Vector 'cardinality' maps to List 'size' right now, and you could say Vector 'size' maps to List 'capacity'. But List exposes no method regarding its capacity. Don't want to push too hard on this; it's a minor thing. But I figure it's early, and such a key abstraction, that it is worth a bit of discussion. Sean On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Jeff Eastman<j...@windwardsolutions.com> wrote: > Whoops, yes, cardinality is intended. Fortunately, the alpha vector in > Dirichlet is dense so it does not impact correctness, such as it is. > >
