On 12/30/2015 03:28 PM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 30/12/2015 20:18, Ole Ersoy a écrit :
Hi Luc,
On 12/30/2015 03:55 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 30/12/2015 06:18, Ole Ersoy a écrit :
Hi,
Hi Ole,
RealMatrixPreservingVisitor and RealMatrixChangingVisitor files look
identical with the exception of a single @see Default... annotation
(Which I think is redundant...same as > All known implementing
classes...?). Would it make sense to remove the annotation and have ons
RealMatrixChangingVisitor extend RealMatrixPreservingVisitor?
No. They are different and used for different things.
The visit method returns void in one case and double in another
case. When it returns double, this double is used to update
the matrix that is visited, hence the "Changing" nature of the
visitor.
Aha - Figured I was missing something - thanks for explaining. What do
you think about removing the @see annotation (IIUC javadoc generates a
link to implementing classes) and having the changing visitor extend the
preserving one while overriding `visit()`?
This would defeat the purpose of the overloaded signatures for the
various walk methods in RealMatrix.
There would also be an ambiguity when calling visit and ignoring the
returned value: would it be a call to the void method in the super
interface or a call to the new method in the lower interface? I don't
even think it is possible to override something based only on the return
type.
Ah - You're right - thanks - I guess I could have just tried it :).
Cheers,
Ole
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
