Re: Supporting object types in BCMath

Hi Barney, > I would suggest if you do this only supporting immutable objects, or at least making immutable > the default, the one with with the simpler name, and reserving the mutable version specifically for > when people want to use mutability. The strings used with bcmath today are effectively immutable. > > It's hard to see why a number should be mutable though. Users of the class can always wrap > an immutable up it in a mutable object if they want. > > If you do have both mutable and immutable it might be worth giving the methods separate names > to make the distinction clearer - e.g. "add" for mutable, "plus" for immutable, > and maybe making the add method return void. Thanks, that's what I was starting to worry about too. It seems like a good idea to support only immutability, as you say earlier in your proposal. Regards. Saki