Just because you can convince 9 out of 10 people that your stupid idea is a good idea doesn't make it a good idea it just makes you a skilled liar.
Morale shall continue until beatings improve.
Etc.
Managed to hit 3000 GitHub contributions today:
Had a change of heart. Doing all of the package renames now rather than waiting for Java 9. I wrote:
There is the possibility that changing the entire name of a project could be considered a non-compatibility-breaking change according to semantic versioning...
I'm choosing to believe this is true and am renaming projects and modules without incrementing the major version number. I'm using japicmp to verify that I'm not introducing binary or source incompatible changes.
Sometimes, what you really need is a mutable, boxed integer.
While updating jcanephora, I
discovered that I needed to update jpra
to use the new jtensors
types. Whilst doing this, I discovered that the new simplified
implementation of the ByteBuffer
based storage tensors that
I'd implemented were too simple: The jpra
package made use
of the cursor-like API that the old jtensors-bytebuffered
package provided. I'd not provided anything analogous to this
in the new API, so I had to do some rewriting. In the process,
I discovered that the code that jpra
generated was using an
AtomicLong
value to store the current byte offset value. The
reason it used an AtomicLong
value was simply because there was
no mutable, boxed long
value in the Java standard library. To
remedy this, I've created a trivial mutable numbers package
upon which the com.io7m.jtensors.storage.bytebuffered
and
com.io7m.jpra.runtime.java
modules now depend. I should have done
this years ago but didn't, for whatever reason.
https://github.com/io7m/jmutnum
It may be the least interesting software package I've ever written.
Going to start working on moving
jcanephora to jtensors
8.0.0-SNAPSHOT in order to flush
out any problems with jtensors
before I try to do a stable 8.0.0
release.