On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote: > James Carman wrote at Montag, 11. Mai 2009 13:17: > >> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 3:01 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> >> wrote: >>> I think there is a basic agreement on this, but back now to functor. In >>> this case it means more or less to include complete functor into >>> collections just for sake of no dependency. So, why had been functor >>> created at all? >> >> Functors can be used outside the context of collections. > > This is right, but it does not answer the question.
It answers that one question. :) But seriously, functors can be very useful programming tools. I use them a LOT in my code. I think having a generic functors package is a very good idea. Also, with the "jar hell" issue, haven't we "fixed" that by deciding that any backward compatibility issues should cause us to jump major version numbers and thus change the package name? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
