On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 04:05:08PM +0100, Dennis Hendriks wrote: > 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?
I thought that a "Base" class might not necessarily need to be "Abstract". Or, if we can assume that it is always so, then you are right; and I'd happy to remove the "Abstract" string from the name, as it is redundant with the "abstract" keyword in the class declaration. The converse is not true: an "Abstract" class is not necessarily a "Base" class, where "Base" is to be taken in the sense of "the most basic functionality"). Best, Gilles > > > 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
