On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:50:01AM +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote: > Le 21/05/2011 01:25, sebb a écrit : > >On 20 May 2011 21:04, Phil Steitz<[email protected]> wrote: > >>This code in BigFraction.add looks dangerous to me: > >> > >> if (ZERO.equals(fraction)) { > >> return this; > >> } > >> > >>subtract has similar code and some other methods return the static > >>BigFraction.ZERO. > >> > >>While BigFractions are Immutable, this could cause problems for > >>applications that are expecting new instances resulting from > >>arithmetic operations. Can anyone see any reason that this should > >>not be changed to consistently create new instances? > > Speed and memory. This is especially important for instances that > are really used a lot (0, 1 ...) as building them anew a lot of > times seems unneeded for immutable instances. > > > > >Seems to me that an application that depends on getting new instances is > >broken. > > I tend to agree here, but there is certainly a reason for such a > need. Could you explain why new instances are mandatory ?
I think that sebb meant that there should _not_ be such a need (cf. his statement below). > >Cf autoboxing which uses valueOf() which may return a cached instance. Regards, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
