[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-123?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16877301#comment-16877301
]
Gilles commented on NUMBERS-123:
--------------------------------
The point about whether or not to put that code in a constructor is IMHO quite
moot since we adopted the ValJO convention (i.e. define factory methods and
make any and all constructors private). Then following that ValJO path, a
distinction is made between direct assignment ("of") and conversion ("from").
IMO, a single constructor is clearer because we can say *once* that either the
constructor will do the reduction, or that the caller (i.e. one of the
conversion methods) is responsible for doing it (and can thus set the flag to
{{false}}).
If you are still convinced that your viewpoint is more sensible, please post to
the ML, asking for more opinions.
> "BigFraction(double)" is unnecessary
> ------------------------------------
>
> Key: NUMBERS-123
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-123
> Project: Commons Numbers
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: fraction
> Reporter: Gilles
> Assignee: Gilles
> Priority: Trivial
> Fix For: 1.0
>
> Attachments: NUMBERS-123__Javadoc.patch
>
> Time Spent: 0.5h
> Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Constructor {{BigFraction(double value)}} is only called from the
> {{from(double value)}} method.
> Actually, this constructor is misleading as it is indeed primarily a
> conversion from which appropriate {{numerator}} and {{denominator}} fields
> are computed; those could be set by
> the "direct" constructor {{BigFraction(BigInteger num, BigInteger den)}}.
> Moreover, the private field {{ZERO}} goes through this conversion code
> whereas it could constructed "directly", e.g. using {{of(0)}}. Similarly for
> field {{ONE}}.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
