On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 1:55 AM, <luc.maison...@free.fr> wrote: > we would provide a default implementation for these new methods, so if > someone did really create a class that implements RealVector, he would > simply have to say it extends AbstractRealVector instead. So there is a > clear gain to accept this kind of incompatible change as soon as 2.1. > > What do other people think about this ? >
I think that what you say is exactly right. > > Perhaps we should also deprecate the gazillion maptXxx and ebeXxx methods, > I'm not sure. > I am on the fence on this. I tend to prefer general methods such as Jake describes, but I have also seen people be confused by them. I do think that a narrower interface is good along with an AbstractRealVector implementation based on the underlying general call. The general call should also recognized some special cases and optimize them. What has been the adoption (within math or by rumour outside) of all of these mapXXX methods? -- Ted Dunning, CTO DeepDyve
