On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> 4) Stephen urged that we revisit StringUtils to see what else can move
> to CharSequence.
>
> 5) Stephen recommended that CharSequenceUtils move into StringUtils.
> This seems fair, CharSequenceUtils is never going to get a lot of
> methods
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-vfs2 has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-scxml-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at gene...@gump.apache.org.
Project commons-proxy-test has an issue affecting its community integration.
This
Minor nit:
String sequenceToString(CharSequence cs)
should be:
String toString(CharSequence cs)
because the we do not need to add the method arg type to the method name. If
we did, we should use:
String charSequenceToString(CharSequence cs)
which I do not like.
Gary
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at
Why is a Range not a Pair?
Because... is it fails the "is a kind of" OOD test?
I could say that a range is a pair of bounds (an upper and lower bound.)
I could argue that Range should subclass Pair. The question is: why are we
NOT eating our own dog food?
Which then brings me to the names of th
Looking at:
public static String right(CharSequence seq, int len)
I wonder why it is not:
public static CharSequence right(CharSequence seq, int len)
You think that would break call sites is why. But when I look at the impl,
the last line is:
return StringUtils.subSequence(seq, seq.le
A range could also be viewed as an interval - in which case lowerBound
and upperBound would make more sense. I imagine it depends on your
perspective, or your interpretation of what a "range" is.
-Adrian
On 3/17/2011 9:03 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
Why is a Range not a Pair?
Because... is it fa
Joda-Time has an Interval class, are you suggesting we implement one like
it?
Gary
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Adrian Crum <
adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote:
> A range could also be viewed as an interval - in which case lowerBound and
> upperBound would make more sense. I imagine
Note the .toString() on the end.
Hen
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Looking at:
>
> public static String right(CharSequence seq, int len)
>
> I wonder why it is not:
>
> public static CharSequence right(CharSequence seq, int len)
>
> You think that would break call
Yeah, I didn't stress the "will want a name change if made public"
enough in the comment higher up in the file. I wanted a style that
wasn't overlapping with the public StringUtils classes; that one is
sequenceToString more to keep in sync with the other methods than
because it's a good name.
It's
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 12:08 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> 4) Stephen urged that we revisit StringUtils to see what else can move
>> to CharSequence.
>>
>> 5) Stephen recommended that CharSequenceUtils move into StringUtils.
>> This seems f
I'm happy to go with the 'fails "is a kind of"'. The real answer is
because Range.java was coded before Pair.java iirc :)
Range is quite possibly going to also have ranges that are unbound on
one of the sides. It also might need to supported negated Ranges, i.e.
the range is from -inf->lower-bound
13 matches
Mail list logo
