Great. Thanks!
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Sebastian Schelter <[email protected]> wrote: > I did exactly what Weishung proposed, just renamed the size arg to > initialCapacity, I think we're good with that. > > --sebastian > > On 12.02.2011 17:52, Weishung Chung wrote: > >> I believe most of us understand that Vector.size() and Matrix.size() >> refer to the size of the vector or matrix, so it's not that a big deal. >> But I would recommend just rename the size in the constructor to >> initialCapacity which would be clear to most of us that it refers to the >> initialCapacity of the internal backing map. Just my two cents :D >> >> RandomAccessSparseVector(int cardinality, int size) >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Sebastian Schelter <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> You're right, I forgot about that. We'd have to rename Vector.size() >> to Vector.dimension() to be consistent... And maybe Matrix.size() too? >> >> Makes the refactoring a little bit more complicated. I think we >> should also keep Vector.size() and Matrix.size() as deprecated >> methods for a little time so we don't break any uncommitted patches. >> >> What do you think? >> >> --sebastian >> >> >> On 12.02.2011 03:29, Ted Dunning wrote: >> >> It's a great idea. >> >> Changing any accessor names is a bit of a bigger deal, but still >> probably a good idea if we get consensus. >> >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Sebastian Schelter >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: >> >> Any objections to that? I'd go for a quick refactoring without >> a >> jira if no one objects. >> >> >> >> >> >
