Re: [math] abstact nonsense was Re: [math][functor] More Design Concerns

2003-07-03 Thread Al Chou
--- "Craig R. McClanahan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My understanding is that this is exactly what you'll get from the > auto-unboxing capability. The compiler will be able to see that the right > hand side returns a Double, and generate the code to unbox it into a > double primitive for you. >

Re: [math] abstact nonsense was Re: [math][functor] More Design Concerns

2003-07-03 Thread Al Chou
--- "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anton Tagunov wrote: > > 3) > > > > BTW, probably does the future introduction of Generics (Java 1.5) > > promise any opportunities to work with primitive values and yet > > have no code duplication (a bit like STL)? > > > > I've not spent much

Re: [math] abstact nonsense was Re: [math][functor] More Design Concerns

2003-07-03 Thread Mark R. Diggory
Craig R. McClanahan wrote: According to the JSR: == begin quote == It is explicitly not required that the system ... b) Support the use of primitive types as type arguments: While allowing the use of primitive types (e.g., int, boolean) as type arguments would be nice, it should not be a goal of t

Re[2]: [math] abstact nonsense was Re: [math][functor] More Design Concerns

2003-07-03 Thread Anton Tagunov
Hello Mark! 1) MRD> One idea is it have Custom Iterators. A Custom Iterator could walk MRD> through the objects in a collection (or the double values in an array) These iterators would also provide other nice capability, receiving the values incrementally, "on the fly" (say, from an InputStream

Re: [math] abstact nonsense was Re: [math][functor] More Design Concerns

2003-07-02 Thread Mark R. Diggory
Phil Steitz wrote: Brent Worden wrote: Unfortunately, Java has created a huge distinction between objects and primitives. They're incompatible types. Objects have to be treated in a distinctly different manner than primitive values. I prefer objects over primitives because the other commons

Re: [math] abstact nonsense was Re: [math][functor] More Design Concerns

2003-07-02 Thread Phil Steitz
Brent Worden wrote: -Original Message- From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:08 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: [math] abstact nonsense was Re: [math][functor] More Design Concerns The changed subject line is a pun that I hope none will

[math] abstact nonsense was Re: [math][functor] More Design Concerns

2003-07-01 Thread Phil Steitz
The changed subject line is a pun that I hope none will find insulting - sort of a little math joke. "Abstract nonsense" is the term that some mathematicians (including some who love the stuff) use to refer to category theory, the birthplace of the functor concept. To conserve bandwidth, I am