Hello,
2012/7/9 Luc Maisonobe <luc.maison...@free.fr>:
> 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 ?
>
That's what I would have thought, too. Would a silent clirr report be
convincing evidence (in which case, I'll try)?
We would also advertise this change in the release notes.
Sébastien
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
