On 3 March 2011 18:56, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: > [SNIP] >> I don't love the new Pair class. We have an interface based version >> here at OpenGamma to allow primitive implementations for performance. >> I might be able to get our code released if there was interest. > > Providing interfaces without code that consumes them doesn't feel like > [lang]'s mission; this is akin to providing exceptions we don't use > IMHO. It might be okay for Pair<L, R> to implement Map.Entry<L, R>, > for example. But when you say primitive implementations, do you mean > implementations based around primitive types, or simplistic > implementations? If the latter, how much more simplistic could it > get?
Our OpenGamma pair is an abstract class (not an interface!): public abstract class Pair<A, B> implements Map.Entry<A, B>, Comparable<Pair<A, B>>, Serializable There are concrete implementations for ObjectsPair, DoublesPair, IntDoublePair etc. where the user can access the primitive type directly, or just use the base generified class. The question is whether [lang] wants no Pair, a simple one, or a full-featured one (where people may disagree on what full-featured should look like). Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
