On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: > Hi, > >> On Dec 1, 2015, at 5:13 PM, Max Leske <maxle...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> @Doru >> You’re missing the point: #anyOne *fails* for empty collections. > > I am not missing the point at all. I am saying that if you want sum: to be > generic, it cannot assume a specific Zero object. > > And sum: should be generic because of its name.
I am missing understanding the other use cases. Can you describe further the generic nature of #sum & #sum: ? I would have thought by default they only applied to numbers. cheers -ben > >>> On 01 Dec 2015, at 15:31, Esteban A. Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I don't want to be heretic (or too orthodox), but why not to delegate >>> this behavior to other class (an iterator maybe?). >>> >>> It's too tempting adding these convenience methods to Collection >>> and/or subclasses, but anything that requires an explicit protocol of >>> its elements is wrong, IMO. >>> >>> something like aCollection arithmetic sum: [...] or.... aCollection >>> arithmetic avg. >> >> >> Interesting thought! > > +100 > > Doru > >>> >>> My two cents for this. >>> >>> Regards! >>> >>> >>> Esteban A. Maringolo >>> >> >> > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > > "Every thing has its own flow." > > > > >
