I may be overlooking something, but isn't
"BaseAbstractUnivariateIntegrator" double, in the sense that "Base" and
"Abstract" both refer to an abstract base class that actual integrators can
derive from? In other words, wouldn't "BaseUnivariateIntegrator" or
"AbstractUnivariateIntegrator" be enough?
Best regards,
Dennis
Brent Worden wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Gilles Sadowski
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
Hi.
In order to resolve issue MATH-707, one last thing could be changed, to make
the whole "analysis" package self-consistent regarding the class naming
scheme: "UnivariateRealIntegrator" -> "UnivariateIntegrator"
Also, the class "UnivariateRealIntegratorImpl.java" should be renamed. In
addition to removing the "Real" part from the name, I would change it to:
"BaseAbstractUnivariateIntegrator"
Do you agree?
Best regards,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
+1
Thanks,
Brent
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
