Phil Steitz a écrit : > I am still working through this class and the sparse matrix class that > it was extracted from (thanks, Ismael and Sugit!), so I am not sure if > changing this would cause problems, but the current setup (returning 0 > for missing keys) limits usefulness of this class. I see how this is > convenient for sparse matrices; but I would see NaN as a more natural > return value for non-existent keys in the general case. Alternatively, > I guess we could add another method get(int key, double missingReturn). > > Thoughts?
I had exactly the same thought while extracting the class. I also prefer to use Double.NaN for numbers that have never been initialized explicitly, but I also understand 0 is more logical in the special case of sparse matrices. What about having a configurable value for missing entries ? It should probably be configured at construction time (with a default value to Double.NaN if not specified) and never changed afterwards. In the case of sparse matrices, we should configure this value to 0.0. Luc > > Phil > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
