!Hola!
Addition would have signatures like sum and negate, while Multiplication
would have multiply and invert.
What about having Monoid with package visibility and then
Addition/Multiplication... extends Monoid ?
Then it would become a bit painless if a class had to implement both
Hi,
On 03/08/2012 15:00, Simone Tripodi wrote:
¡Hola!
Also remember that if we ever want to deal with, say, multiplications,
monoids are only going to be in the way (we already touched this topic
before, see [1]). I'm still happy to update and simplify names, only
following a different
Hi there :-)
Hi Claudio!
happy to read from you here :)
I just noticed that the weight/primitives sub-package contains classes
which name convention refers to *Weight - WDYT renaming them to
*SumMonoid ?
I am not convinced about this one.
I've come to the conclusion that we should get rid
¡Hola!
Also remember that if we ever want to deal with, say, multiplications,
monoids are only going to be in the way (we already touched this topic
before, see [1]). I'm still happy to update and simplify names, only
following a different pattern: e.g. from DoubleWeightBaseOperations to
Hi Claudio!
happy to read from you here :)
I just noticed that the weight/primitives sub-package contains classes
which name convention refers to *Weight - WDYT renaming them to
*SumMonoid ?
best and TIA!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
Hi Simone!
Both changes sound good to me. You are more familiar than me with
builder so I trust your word; and also s/weight/math sounds indeed
more appropriate given the general purpose classes that it contains.
Cheers
Claudio
Hi all grap-ers,
I am doing the n-th review on [graph] and
