sebb wrote:
On 02/01/2009, Luc Maisonobe <luc.maison...@free.fr> 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.
+1
Phil
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
