Re: [math] evaluate methods

2004-10-03 Thread Phil Steitz
Kim van der Linde wrote: Ok, my question then becomes: why this structure? Cheers, Kim Probably the best answer here is "browse the archives." Here are a couple of relevant threads: http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgId=756204 http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: [math] evaluate methods

2004-10-03 Thread Kim van der Linde
Ok, my question then becomes: why this structure? Cheers, Kim Phil Steitz wrote: Kim van der Linde wrote: Hi All, I have a question. All evaluate methods are non-static, but they do not depend on information stored already in the class. That would suggest for me to make them static So, I gues

Re: [math] evaluate methods

2004-10-03 Thread Phil Steitz
Kim van der Linde wrote: Hi All, I have a question. All evaluate methods are non-static, but they do not depend on information stored already in the class. That would suggest for me to make them static So, I guess that there is a compelling reason not to do that, but one that I do not know..

[math] evaluate methods

2004-10-02 Thread Kim van der Linde
Hi All, I have a question. All evaluate methods are non-static, but they do not depend on information stored already in the class. That would suggest for me to make them static So, I guess that there is a compelling reason not to do that, but one that I do not know Can anyone enlighten