- About Scala
- Documentation
- Code Examples
- Software
- Scala Developers
RE: GenericRange and @experimental
Wed, 2009-11-04, 22:49
<20455.1257369844@monk.ccl.northwestern.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_b4867dae-0906-4668-9662-70dfe74f9860_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Do you guys mean this in a "it's good=2C but someday wouldn't it be great
> if it were even more awesome" way? Or in a "it sucks let's axe it from
> 2.8" way?=20
I mean that I think it is a shame that you can't have a range of anything w=
hich is ordered. Having said that=2C as Daniel has commented=2C it seems as=
though Range implies discreteness in Scala-land. Hence I'm not against thi=
s going into 2.8.
Perhaps a separate Interval class could be written which represents arbitra=
ry intervals on ordered sets (which may be bounded=2C closed=2C clopen=2C o=
pen etc). Evidently this is not going to make it into 2.8 - had I been on t=
his mailing list before Sunday=2C I might have suggested it earlier
> (not that we shouldn't discuss potential future improvements=2C perhaps o=
n
> scala-debate or something=2C but at the moment=2C I suggest we keep this
> thread focused on what's of immediate relevance to the 2.8 release)
Accepted. I've only been using Scala for a year and am using it in a commer=
cial environment=2C which means that I've left the library-cleverness to th=
e experts up to now :-) =20
_________________________________________________________________
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/buy/=
--_b4867dae-0906-4668-9662-70dfe74f9860_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=3B Do you guys mean this in a "it's good=2C but someday wouldn't it be =
great
>=3B if it were even more awesome" way? Or in a "it sucks let's= axe it from
>=3B 2.8" way? =3B
I mean that I t= hink it is a shame that you can't have a range of anything which is ordered= . Having said that=2C as Daniel has commented=2C it seems as though Range i= mplies discreteness in Scala-land. Hence I'm not against this going into 2.= 8.
Perhaps a separate Interval class could be writ= ten which represents arbitrary intervals on ordered sets (which may be boun= ded=2C closed=2C clopen=2C open etc). Evidently this is not going to make i= t into 2.8 - had I been on this mailing list before Sunday=2C I might have = suggested it earlier
>=3B (not that we shouldn't= discuss potential future improvements=2C perhaps on
>=3B scala-debate= or something=2C but at the moment=2C I suggest we keep this
>=3B thre= ad focused on what's of immediate relevance to the 2.8 release)
Accepted. I've only been using Scala for a year and am using it in a= commercial environment=2C which means that I've left the library-clevernes= s to the experts up to now :-)
New Windows 7: = Find the right PC for you. Learn more. = --_b4867dae-0906-4668-9662-70dfe74f9860_--
>=3B if it were even more awesome" way? Or in a "it sucks let's= axe it from
>=3B 2.8" way? =3B
I mean that I t= hink it is a shame that you can't have a range of anything which is ordered= . Having said that=2C as Daniel has commented=2C it seems as though Range i= mplies discreteness in Scala-land. Hence I'm not against this going into 2.= 8.
Perhaps a separate Interval class could be writ= ten which represents arbitrary intervals on ordered sets (which may be boun= ded=2C closed=2C clopen=2C open etc). Evidently this is not going to make i= t into 2.8 - had I been on this mailing list before Sunday=2C I might have = suggested it earlier
>=3B (not that we shouldn't= discuss potential future improvements=2C perhaps on
>=3B scala-debate= or something=2C but at the moment=2C I suggest we keep this
>=3B thre= ad focused on what's of immediate relevance to the 2.8 release)
Accepted. I've only been using Scala for a year and am using it in a= commercial environment=2C which means that I've left the library-clevernes= s to the experts up to now :-)
New Windows 7: = Find the right PC for you. Learn more. = --_b4867dae-0906-4668-9662-70dfe74f9860_--
Wed, 2009-11-04, 23:07
#2
Re: GenericRange and @experimental
>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Sobral writes:
Daniel> Anyway, by all that I mean we should take GenericRange off
Daniel> Scala 2.8, until something really generic can be put in place.
What if it were renamed to NumericRange?
Wed, 2009-11-04, 23:17
#3
RE: GenericRange and @experimental
<9461d7d00911041331rab6bc76xdc5c037ca663ea65@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
--_f7910c14-0a56-42bc-b368-ec6ca42778b3_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> I have no sring opinions on GenericRange. But it's indicative of a
> larger problem. Do you do the quick thing now=2C with the risk of making
> the more general thing later impossible without breakage=2C or do you
> wait until you have something more general?=20
The solution to this is to put as little functionality in as possible. A si=
ngle class is relatively straightforward and uncomplicated - although your =
argument is perfectly valid for larger projects (like Generic Java for exam=
ple) which *must* be got right first time.
When we are talking about individual classes=2C how will the adding of thes=
e to the incubator and decision process be organized? This could turn into =
a real mess very quickly (i.e. the JCP) =20
_________________________________________________________________
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/buy/=
--_f7910c14-0a56-42bc-b368-ec6ca42778b3_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=3B I have no sring opinions on GenericRange. But it's indicative of= a
>=3B larger problem. Do you do the quick thing now=2C with the risk= of making
>=3B the more general thing later impossible without breaka= ge=2C or do you
>=3B wait until you have something more general? = =3B
The solution to this is to put as little functio= nality in as possible. A single class is relatively straightforward and unc= omplicated - although your argument is perfectly valid for larger projects = (like Generic Java for example) which *must* be got right first time.=
When we are talking about individual classes=2C how wil= l the adding of these to the incubator and decision process be organized? T= his could turn into a real mess very quickly (i.e. the JCP) =
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more. = --_f7910c14-0a56-42bc-b368-ec6ca42778b3_--
>=3B I have no sring opinions on GenericRange. But it's indicative of= a
>=3B larger problem. Do you do the quick thing now=2C with the risk= of making
>=3B the more general thing later impossible without breaka= ge=2C or do you
>=3B wait until you have something more general? = =3B
The solution to this is to put as little functio= nality in as possible. A single class is relatively straightforward and unc= omplicated - although your argument is perfectly valid for larger projects = (like Generic Java for example) which *must* be got right first time.=
When we are talking about individual classes=2C how wil= l the adding of these to the incubator and decision process be organized? T= his could turn into a real mess very quickly (i.e. the JCP) =
New Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more. = --_f7910c14-0a56-42bc-b368-ec6ca42778b3_--
Wed, 2009-11-04, 23:37
#4
Re: GenericRange and @experimental
I would have no problem with that. It makes a lot of sense, in fact.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Seth Tisue <seth@tisue.net> wrote:
--
Daniel C. Sobral
Veni, vidi, veterni.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Seth Tisue <seth@tisue.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Sobral <dcsobral@gmail.com> writes:
Daniel> Anyway, by all that I mean we should take GenericRange off
Daniel> Scala 2.8, until something really generic can be put in place.
What if it were renamed to NumericRange?
--
Seth Tisue @ Northwestern University / http://tisue.net
lead developer, NetLogo: http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/
--
Daniel C. Sobral
Veni, vidi, veterni.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Daniel Sobral <dcsobral@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Daniel C. Sobral
Veni, vidi, veterni.