Ok, sort of letting eclipse take over. More comments inline.
"Phil Steitz" <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49901038.2070...@gmail.com...
> billbar...@apache.org wrote:
>
> Do we need this?
>> + if (mask != other.mask)
>> + return false;
>> .
as the code stands now, unnecessary. The value can't be currently changed.
More than happy to remove the check.
> ...
>
>
> Or this?
>> + if (!Arrays.equals(states, other.states)){
>>
> It would seem reasonable to me that two OpenIntToDoubleHashMaps would be
> equal iff they contain they contain the same entries and have the same
> default (missingEntries). Including the private fields above in equals
> will make it more sensitive than that. Since mask relates to capacity, I
> guess it could make sense to include that in equals comparisons, but
> unless I am misunderstanding how put works, I think that including states
> in the comparison could make two instances unequal if their entries have
> been added in different orders. Do we want this?
>
I'm thinking probably not. I agree with your def of equals for
OpenIntToDoubleHashMap, so will change it.
> Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
