remember the point of @Digits, limit the scale / precision of them.
Scale / precision are defined based on a pre defined representation
(decimal in this case).
On Feb 18, 2009, at 16:43, johng@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry if I'm repeating information that someone else may have
brought up and
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:46:59 +0100, Emmanuel Bernard
wrote:
this is not the semantic I would naturally apply to number. Not sure.
Why not? I think @Number or @Numeric would work quite well. I guess the
"problem"
is when you place either one of a String. I agree that
@Number-/@NumericRep
this is not the semantic I would naturally apply to number. Not sure.
On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:12, Hardy Ferentschik wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:01:24 +0100, Emmanuel Bernard > wrote:
I am considering renaming @Digits to @DecimalRepresentation to make
room for the plural form
@interface De
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:01:24 +0100, Emmanuel Bernard
wrote:
I am considering renaming @Digits to @DecimalRepresentation to make room
for the plural form
@interface DecimalRepresentations {
DecimalRepresentation[] value()
}
Any better name?
What' about @Number and @Numbers?
--Hardy
Sorry if I'm repeating information that someone else may have brought up
and I hope I'm not throwing a wrench into the works. What about @Interface
NumericRepresentations? This could leave room for hex and octal numbers.
Just my 2 cents.
John Griffin
On Feb 18, 2009 8:01am, Emmanuel Berna
