Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Jörg Schaible
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> >> I find the naming convention rather difficult to follow.
>>> >>
>>> >> For example, the letter 's' sometimes
I like the enum idea too.
G
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Duncan Jones wrote:
> On 3 October 2012 18:24, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> > Matt Benson wrote:
> >
> >> Urgh; I find these method names rather painful. Why wouldn't we
> >> simply provide endianness and bit ordering as enums, and paramet
On 3 October 2012 18:24, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Matt Benson wrote:
>
>> Urgh; I find these method names rather painful. Why wouldn't we
>> simply provide endianness and bit ordering as enums, and parameterize
>> accordingly?
>
> Because the algorithm is different (although similar) every time and
Matt Benson wrote:
> Urgh; I find these method names rather painful. Why wouldn't we
> simply provide endianness and bit ordering as enums, and parameterize
> accordingly?
Because the algorithm is different (although similar) every time and not all
combinations are implemented?
Honestly, we wo
Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Jörg Schaible
> wrote:
>
>> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > sebb wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> I find the naming convention rather difficult to follow.
>> >>
>> >> For example, the letter 's' sometimes means 'array' and sometimes
>> >> means
Also note that we have org.apache.commons.*io*.EndianUtils which does not
do the same thing but it a good class name.
Gary
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:51 AM, James Carman wrote:
> Agreed. This is very cryptic, IMHO.
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> > Urgh; I find these m
Agreed. This is very cryptic, IMHO.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> Urgh; I find these method names rather painful. Why wouldn't we
> simply provide endianness and bit ordering as enums, and parameterize
> accordingly?
>
> Matt
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Gary Greg
Urgh; I find these method names rather painful. Why wouldn't we
simply provide endianness and bit ordering as enums, and parameterize
accordingly?
Matt
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>
>> >
>
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
> >
> > sebb wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> I find the naming convention rather difficult to follow.
> >>
> >> For example, the letter 's' sometimes means 'array' and sometimes means
> >> 'string' Also M0 is not obvious as an
Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
> sebb wrote:
[snip]
>> I find the naming convention rather difficult to follow.
>>
>> For example, the letter 's' sometimes means 'array' and sometimes means
>> 'string' Also M0 is not obvious as an abbreviation, nor is BeM0
>
> I am all open for better names, all *I*
sebb wrote:
> On 28 September 2012 18:47, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>> Unless there is a significant improvement across several Java
>>> versions, I'm -1 on the change as the code is now more obscure.
>>
>> Done.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> Any comment on replacing the standard hex
On Sep 29, 2012, at 6:58, "Jörg Schaible" wrote:
> Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jörg Schaible
>> wrote:
>>
>>> sebb wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
Unless there is a significant improvement across several Java
versions, I'm -1 on the change as the code is now more obscu
Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jörg Schaible
> wrote:
>
>> sebb wrote:
[snip]
>> > Unless there is a significant improvement across several Java
>> > versions, I'm -1 on the change as the code is now more obscure.
>>
>> Done.
>>
>> Any comment on replacing the standard h
On 28 September 2012 18:47, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
>> On 28 September 2012 08:17, Jörg Schaible
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Sebb,
>>>
>>> sebb wrote:
>>>
On 27 September 2012 23:53, wrote:
> Author: joehni
> Date: Thu Sep 27 22:53:46 2012
> New Revision: 1391258
>
>
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 28 September 2012 08:17, Jörg Schaible
> > wrote:
> >> Hi Sebb,
> >>
> >> sebb wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 27 September 2012 23:53, wrote:
> Author: joehni
> Date: Thu Sep 27 22:53:46 2012
> New Revision: 13912
sebb wrote:
> On 28 September 2012 08:17, Jörg Schaible
> wrote:
>> Hi Sebb,
>>
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 27 September 2012 23:53, wrote:
Author: joehni
Date: Thu Sep 27 22:53:46 2012
New Revision: 1391258
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1391258&view=rev
Log:
On 28 September 2012 08:17, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Sebb,
>
> sebb wrote:
>
>> On 27 September 2012 23:53, wrote:
>>> Author: joehni
>>> Date: Thu Sep 27 22:53:46 2012
>>> New Revision: 1391258
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1391258&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Use conversion tables fo
2012/9/28 Jörg Schaible :
> Hi Sebb,
>
> sebb wrote:
>
>> On 27 September 2012 23:53, wrote:
>>> Author: joehni
>>> Date: Thu Sep 27 22:53:46 2012
>>> New Revision: 1391258
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1391258&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Use conversion tables for boolean arrays.
>>
>>
Hi Sebb,
sebb wrote:
> On 27 September 2012 23:53, wrote:
>> Author: joehni
>> Date: Thu Sep 27 22:53:46 2012
>> New Revision: 1391258
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1391258&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Use conversion tables for boolean arrays.
>
> I think the previous code was much cleare
On 27 September 2012 23:53, wrote:
> Author: joehni
> Date: Thu Sep 27 22:53:46 2012
> New Revision: 1391258
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1391258&view=rev
> Log:
> Use conversion tables for boolean arrays.
I think the previous code was much clearer.
At first sight it now looks as t
20 matches
Mail list logo
