On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 16:26, Mark R. Diggory wrote: > [-1] > > Um, I'm not too clear on this one, how is calling > MathUtils.isPositive(d) clearer than (d >= 0)?
[+0], Mark, if I follow the discussion correctly, the concept isn't trying to ascertain if a given number is greater than or equal to zero. I believe that the discussion revolved around the mathematical concept of "Positive". Is a given number "positive" is a different question from is a given number greater than or equal to zero - depending on your specific definition and needs. An application that needs to test for a Non-negative numbers, would benefit from a isNonNegative method. Even though, the function simply contains d >= 0. MathUtils.isNonNegative( 3 ) is conceptually different from 3 >= 0. Personally, I would choose, "3 >= 0", but if a programmer wished to invoke that operation via MathUtils.isNonNegative to attain a sort of conceptual "purity", I don't think this is our decision to make. > I included Al's functions because they were a little more complex than > that, they provided different return type when dealing with different > evaluations. Of course these could be captured inline quite easily as > well with examples like: > > d >= 0 ? 1d : -1d > d > 0 ? 1d : -1d I'm not sure why that function would not return a boolean primitive, anyone have any good reasons not to? > definitely reinvents the wheel in a very big way. I think in general its > best to keep static functions in MathUtil's that simplify complex > calculations like factorials. Again, I can see someone wanting these functions if one wants to be absolutely sure that they are complying with strict conceptual definitions in a very large system. I don't personally have a need for isPositive, but that isn't to say that Al hasn't found a good reason to use them in the past. Al? what was the motivation here? Tim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
