I'm happy to go with the 'fails "is a kind of"'. The real answer is because Range.java was coded before Pair.java iirc :)
Range is quite possibly going to also have ranges that are unbound on one of the sides. It also might need to supported negated Ranges, i.e. the range is from -inf->lower-bound & upper-bound->inf. One of the 3.0 feedback items was to move the translators over to a Range based API. Hen On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why is a Range not a Pair? > > Because... is it fails the "is a kind of" OOD test? > > I could say that a range is a pair of bounds (an upper and lower bound.) > > I could argue that Range should subclass Pair. The question is: why are we > NOT eating our own dog food? > > Which then brings me to the names of the bounds for Range: minimum and > maximum, which IMO should be lowerBound and upperBound. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Thank you, > Gary > > http://garygregory.wordpress.com/ > http://garygregory.com/ > http://people.apache.org/~ggregory/ > http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
