> Just to be sure: You propose to remove > public void setDistribution(TDistribution value) > Is this correct?
Yes. > If so, another proposal - I'm not sure it's a clever one - is > > ---CUT--- > public TDistribution setDistribution(TDistribution value) { > double n = value.getDegreesOfFreedom(); > if (n > 2) { > n -= 2; > } > > final TDistribution newDistribution = new TDistributionImpl(n - 2); > distribution = newDistribution; > return newDistribution; > } > ---CUT--- > > So that the new instance gets returned. As mentioned, I'm not sure > it's a good idea, but it would maintain the possibility to change > distribution. I think I'd prefer deleting the setDistribution-method > instead of this psudo-solution. There would remain the problem that, if "value" was instantiated with the other constructor: ---CUT--- public TDistributionImpl(double degreesOfFreedom, double inverseCumAccuracy) { // ... } ---CUT--- one could potentially have inconsistent behaviour since the "inverseCumAccuracy" parameter cannot be recovered (it is only accessible through a "protected" accessor method). > TTestImpl: Would it be an idea to change the constructor to pass a > double degreeOfFreedom instead of a TDistribution? Yes, that would solve the problem. Best, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org