[Os-project-managers] Discussion item: InVector/NonNegativeIntVector

[Jun Ma]

This may have already been discussed.
I think it's good to have these.
Why not? Doesn't hurt to define these generic types in OSgL.

Jun

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Gus Gassmann" <Horand.Gassmann at dal.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 2:19 PM
To: <os-project-managers at list.coin-or.org>
Subject: [Os-project-managers] Discussion item: 
InVector/NonNegativeIntVector

> Hi guys,
>
> this item expands on the consent agenda item regarding sparse objects. Do
> we need multiple integer vectors? At present we have
> IntVector
> NonNegativeIntVector
> NegativeIntVector
> PositiveIntVector
>
> On one hand there is the proliferation of classes. Is this really 
> necessary?
> We can always enforce nonnegativity in code (after proper documentation!)
> On the other hand we have the validation question. With different classes,
> we can enforce nonnegativity (for instance) in a validating parser; if 
> there is
> only one class IntVector, things are more difficult.
>
> I think we should discuss at the next meeting.
>
> Cheers
>
> gus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Os-project-managers mailing list
> Os-project-managers at list.coin-or.org
> http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/os-project-managers
>