osdir.com

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]# Re: [commons-numbers] [...] NUMBERS-91: Added ofInt() factory methods [...]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

I'd suggest `of` and `ofXxx` for factories that perform little work, such as assigning to instance fields, and `from` and `fromXxx` for factories that perform meaningful work or conversion. Stephen On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 at 17:24, Eric Barnhill <ericbarnhill@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Fractions are constructed using either ints or doubles. In the case of > ints, the numerator and denominator are passed (or the denominator is > assumed to be one). Constructing fractions from doubles is more algorithmic > work: if I pass a known fixed quantity such as 0.6 of course it will not be > hard for the constructor to determine that is the equivalent of 3 / 5 . > However if doubles are being passed of unknown precision, then I may want > to request a max value on the denominator, or a precision within which the > simplest fraction should be returned, or even the maximum iterations in the > computation. > > I think of those as qualitatively very different activities so I called > them ofInt and ofDouble. The example I had in mind was probably Complex, > where we have ofPolar and ofCartesian. I suppose you are right, in this > case the hard typing of the passed variables alone could invoke either an > int or double based method while with Complex, both constructors are taking > doubles. > > You do then have some very similar methods, for example of(int a, int b) > will be an integer fraction with a on top and b on bottom; while calling > of(double a, int b) will produce a fraction that approximates double a with > max denominator b. > > Those two processes are so different that it might be more clarifying to > distinguish them as ofInt(int a, int b) and ofDouble(double a, int b) > > Eric > > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 4:33 AM Gilles <gilles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hello Eric. > > > > On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 17:00:15 -0800, Eric Barnhill wrote: > > > I am overloading: > > > > > > public static BigFraction ofInt(final BigInteger num) { > > > return new BigFraction(num, BigInteger.ONE); > > > } > > > > > > public static BigFraction ofInt(BigInteger num, BigInteger den) { > > > return new BigFraction(num, den); > > > } > > > > > > private BigFraction(BigInteger num, BigInteger den) { > > > > > > Did my comment not give that impression? > > > > I was in fact wondering why "ofInt" rather than just "of". > > > > Best, > > Gilles > > > > >> [...] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Prev by Date:
**Re: [commons-numbers] [...] NUMBERS-91: Added ofInt() factory methods [...]** - Next by Date:
**Re: [VOTE][LAZY] Move commons-codec to gitbox after 1.12 release.** - Previous by thread:
**Re: [commons-numbers] [...] NUMBERS-91: Added ofInt() factory methods [...]** - Next by thread:
**Re: [commons-numbers] [...] NUMBERS-91: Added ofInt() factory methods [...]** - Index(es):