!Hola!
> Addition would have signatures like "sum" and "negate", while Multiplication
> would have "multiply" and "invert".
>> What about having Monoid with package visibility and then
>> "Addition/Multiplication... extends Monoid" ?
>
>
> Then it would become a bit painless if a class had to impl
Hi,
On 03/08/2012 15:00, Simone Tripodi wrote:
¡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
¡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
Hi there :-)
> Hi Claudio!
>
> happy to read from you here :)
>
> I just noticed that the weight/primitives sub-package contains classes
> which name convention refers to *Weight - WDYT renaming them to
> *SumMonoid ?
I am not convinced about this one.
I've come to the conclusion that we should g
Hi Claudio!
happy to read from you here :)
I just noticed that the weight/primitives sub-package contains classes
which name convention refers to *Weight - WDYT renaming them to
*SumMonoid ?
best and TIA!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http:
Hi Simone!
Both changes sound good to me. You are more familiar than me with
"builder" so I trust your word; and also "s/weight/math" sounds indeed
more appropriate given the general purpose classes that it contains.
Cheers
Claudio
> Hi all grap-ers,
>
> I am doing the n-th review on [graph] and
