On 11/05/2009, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > 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.
[I've not looked at this, so it may not make sense] Perhaps the parts of collections that require functors could be moved to the functor jar? > > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
