Range is not a sub-type of pair. You can think of a pair as being an ordered set of 2 items. A Range is a contiguous set defined by a lower and upper bound (which may or may not be inclusive). Given some flag Clusive=Inclusive|Exclusive, then every range is uniquely identified by a single Pair<Pair<Clusive, numeric>>. The in-memory representation of the data defining a pair and a range may be the same, but they are not at all the same kind of thing.
Matthew On 18 May 2011 17:46, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Why doesn't a Range does extend Pair? It's pretty clear (to me at least) > > that a range is a pair of values. > > > > Because the Pair is in our tuple package, it means that it should follow > > tuple logic and be thought of as an ordered list of elements, in this > case > > two elements. > > > > The methods that Range has that are not in Pair could be moved there. > > > > IMHO a Range is not precisely a Pair, though it could define its > _limits_ in those terms. > > Matt > > > -- > > 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 > > -- Matthew Pocock mailto: turingatemyhams...@gmail.com gchat: turingatemyhams...@gmail.com msn: matthew_poc...@yahoo.co.uk irc.freenode.net: drdozer (0191) 2566550
