Hi Luc.
> > [...]
> >
> > Talking about monstrosity, HTML beats LaTeX by far (IMHO).
> > The rule could be that only single formula can documented with LaTeX.
> >
> > My proposal is in line with using "xml" in the user guide. Instead of LaTeX
> > it could some other markup language that can prop
Hi.
> I have to say that the underscore tradition is an esthetic issue about which
> there is some strong disagreement.
>
> I find it particularly distasteful.
As with all matter of taste...
I find it particularly useful.
That said, I was not asking for a vote on this.
It's possible to get acc
Le 30/01/2011 19:47, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>>
> src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math/ode/nonstiff/AdaptiveStepsizeIntegrator.java
>> src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math/geometry/Rotation.java
>> I think that the list is quite long...
>>
When what is being set is exac
On 1/30/11 1:38 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> I have to say that the underscore tradition is an esthetic issue about which
> there is some strong disagreement.
>
> I find it particularly distasteful.
>
> And, for what it is worth, I think that the Sun coding conventions recommend
> against it.
>
+1
Phi
>
> >>> src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math/ode/nonstiff/AdaptiveStepsizeIntegrator.java
> src/main/java/org/apache/commons/math/geometry/Rotation.java
> I think that the list is quite long...
>
> >> When what is being set is exactly the field value and this name makes
> >> se
I have to say that the underscore tradition is an esthetic issue about which
there is some strong disagreement.
I find it particularly distasteful.
And, for what it is worth, I think that the Sun coding conventions recommend
against it.
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
gil...@h
On 1/30/11 12:42 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:19:23AM -0500, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote:
>>> Thanks for clearifying :).
>>> Den 30/01/2011 16.01 skrev "Gilles Sadowski" :
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 02:58:43PM +01
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:19:23AM -0500, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote:
> > Thanks for clearifying :).
> > Den 30/01/2011 16.01 skrev "Gilles Sadowski" :
> >> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 02:58:43PM +0100, Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote:
> Thanks for clearifying :).
> Den 30/01/2011 16.01 skrev "Gilles Sadowski" :
>> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 02:58:43PM +0100, Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 2011/1/30 Gilles Sadowski :
>>> > Hello.
>>> >
>>> >> I noticed tha
Thanks for clearifying :).
Den 30/01/2011 16.01 skrev "Gilles Sadowski" :
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 02:58:43PM +0100, Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2011/1/30 Gilles Sadowski :
>> > Hello.
>> >
>> >> I noticed that you have code where fields and constructor arguments
>> >> have the same
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 02:58:43PM +0100, Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2011/1/30 Gilles Sadowski :
> > Hello.
> >
> >> I noticed that you have code where fields and constructor arguments
> >> have the same name. As far as I remember that is not good practise,
> >> but I might be wrong :-
Hi,
2011/1/30 Gilles Sadowski :
> Hello.
>
>> I noticed that you have code where fields and constructor arguments
>> have the same name. As far as I remember that is not good practise,
>> but I might be wrong :-)?
>
> Most (all?) of CM follows this convention.
Just to be sure: Do you mean that in
Hello.
> I noticed that you have code where fields and constructor arguments
> have the same name. As far as I remember that is not good practise,
> but I might be wrong :-)?
Most (all?) of CM follows this convention.
[Personally I prefer that fieds use names prefixed by an underscore
character
It used to be dubious practice, but now that IDEs can provide an error
for this case, it is IMO back to being good practice (in that its easy
to read and understand, and follows the Sun conventions)
Stephen
On 30 January 2011 13:22, Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that you have c
Hi,
I noticed that you have code where fields and constructor arguments
have the same name. As far as I remember that is not good practise,
but I might be wrong :-)?
Cheers, Mikkel.
2011/1/30 :
> Author: erans
> Date: Sat Jan 29 23:38:39 2011
> New Revision: 1065146
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.o
15 matches
Mail list logo
