On 02/01/2009, Luc Maisonobe <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
+0 (I never used Math, but seems sensible) > 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. +1 to never changing the value - making it final would be best for thread safety. > > Luc > > > > > > Phil > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
