On 09/07/2012 07:08, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> 2012/7/9 Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>:
>> On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 01:49:25PM +0200, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> most existing methods in class RealVector allow method chaining.
>>
>> Chaining does not always make for readable code.
>>
>>> However, some methods just return void instead of this
>>> - addToEntry
>>> - set
>>> - setEntry
>>> - setSubVector
>>> - unitize
>>>
>>> Are you OK with having all or only some (which ones) methods return this?
>>
>> +0 (for people who like it).
>>
> I agree, I generally find confusing methods which return {@code this},
> but I have to admit that in this context, a fluent interface is very
> useful.
I think changing a return value from void to non-void is safe from a
compatibility point of view, but I would like to be sure. Does anybody
have an advice on it ?
Luc
> Sébastien
>>
>> [And for API consistency.]
>>
>>
>> Gilles
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
