On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Stephen Colebourne <scolebou...@joda.org> wrote: > 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. > > The combined opinion of all at OpenGamma ($dayjob) is that a Range is > a very different beast to a Pair. Simply because there are two data > points, does not make it a pair :-)
+1. Good sentiment from your colleagues. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
