¡Hola! > Also remember that if we ever want to deal with, say, multiplications, > monoids are only going to be in the way (we already touched this topic > before, see [1]). I'm still happy to update and simplify names, only > following a different pattern: e.g. from "DoubleWeightBaseOperations" to > "DoubleOperations". And I'd also replace "Monoid" with "Addition".
yeah thanks of the reminder - I was searching for it in the mail archives and didn't find it :P wouldn't "Multiplication" have exactly the same methods signature of "Addition" aka Monoid? I wouldn't replicate stuff just to implement markers... Anyway I agree that algorithms need specific monoids, such as Dijkstra that needs Addition - guess it wouldn't work with Subtractions :P What about having Monoid with package visibility and then "Addition/Multiplication... extends Monoid" ? > After thinking a bit I'm also a bit perplexed about renaming "builder" to > "connect", and in general about the name of the method "connect()". You > know the meaning of "connected" in graph theory, while with our method we > could actually create a graph which is not connected (e.g. one with no > edges at all). agreed! > So I suggest to look for a less ambiguous alternative: > "populate" (this gets my vote)? "declare"? "construct"? "assemble"? +1 to "populate" (and related class renaming?) thanks a lot for your feedbacks and enjoy vacations! -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
