Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #22644 > unrolled thread

Boolean

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Boolean odie4penname@gmail.com - 2013-02-28 23:22 -0800
    Re: Boolean JLP <JLP@jlp.com> - 2013-03-01 09:18 +0100
      Re: Boolean odie4penname@gmail.com - 2013-03-01 06:42 -0800
        Re: Boolean Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-03-01 10:25 -0500
      Re: Boolean Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-03-01 11:21 -0800
        Re: Boolean JLP <JLP@jlp.com> - 2013-03-04 09:12 +0100
          Re: Boolean Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-03-04 11:38 -0800
            Re: Boolean Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-03-04 11:45 -0800
              Re: Boolean Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-03-04 15:06 -0800
                Re: Boolean JLP <JLP@jlp.com> - 2013-03-05 11:45 +0100
            Re: Boolean Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-03-06 20:19 -0500
              Re: Boolean lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-03-07 08:50 +0000
                Re: Boolean Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-03-07 09:58 -0800
                  Re: Boolean Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2013-03-07 19:24 +0100
                    Re: Boolean lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-03-07 19:11 +0000
                  Re: Boolean lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-03-07 19:21 +0000
                    Re: Boolean Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-03-12 09:10 -0700
                      Re: Boolean Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2013-03-12 09:54 -0700
                        Re: Boolean markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-03-12 10:04 -0700
                          Re: Boolean Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2013-03-12 12:02 -0700
                Re: Boolean Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-03-07 13:50 -0500
                  Re: Boolean lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-03-07 19:00 +0000
                    Re: Boolean Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-03-07 14:10 -0500
                      Re: Boolean lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-03-07 19:25 +0000
                Re: Boolean Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-03-07 13:52 -0500
                  Re: Boolean Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2013-03-07 23:27 +0100
                    Re: Boolean Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-03-07 17:46 -0500
                      Re: Boolean lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-03-08 09:22 +0000
                    Re: Boolean lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-03-08 08:16 +0000
                      Re: Boolean Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2013-03-08 10:30 +0100
                        Re: Boolean lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-03-08 15:00 +0000
                          Re: Boolean Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2013-03-09 01:37 +0100
                            Re: Boolean lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-03-09 08:40 +0000
                              Re: Boolean Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2013-03-09 09:54 +0100
                                Re: Boolean lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-03-09 09:08 +0000
                                  Re: Boolean Lars Enderin <lars.enderin@telia.com> - 2013-03-09 11:38 +0100
                                    Re: Boolean lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-03-09 12:01 +0000
    Re: Boolean odie4penname@gmail.com - 2013-03-01 07:50 -0800
      Re: Boolean Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-03-01 11:14 -0500
    Re: Boolean Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-03-01 09:08 -0800
      Re: Boolean Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-03-01 18:26 +0100
        Re: Boolean lipska the kat <"nospam at neversurrender dot co dot uk"> - 2013-03-01 19:37 +0000
          Re: Boolean Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-03-01 21:44 +0100
          Re: Boolean Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-03-01 18:34 -0500
        Re: Boolean Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2013-03-01 18:33 -0500
        Re: Boolean Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-03-01 17:48 -0800
          Re: Boolean Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-03-02 04:03 +0100

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#22644 — Boolean

Hello everyone,

I'd like to make sure I have done this correct. I am using BluJ:

Create a public boolean method named
MynumberisOdd that takes an integer parameter named 
num and returns a boolean value indicating whether num is Odd.

The method should check if num is odd and return true when the number is odd and false when the number is even

Here is what I have:


public class example

{
    public static void main(String [] args)
    {
        int x=1;

    }

    public boolean isNumberOdd (int num)
    {
        return num%2 !=0;
        

        
    }
}

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#22646

Le 01/03/2013 08:22, odie4penname@gmail.com a écrit :
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I'd like to make sure I have done this correct. I am using BluJ:
> 
> Create a public boolean method named
> MynumberisOdd that takes an integer parameter named 
> num and returns a boolean value indicating whether num is Odd.
> 
> The method should check if num is odd and return true when the number is odd and false when the number is even
> 
> Here is what I have:
> 
> 
> public class example
> 
> {
>     public static void main(String [] args)
>     {
>         int x=1;
> 
>     }
> 
>     public boolean isNumberOdd (int num)
>     {
>         return num%2 !=0;
>         
> 
>         
>     }
> }
> 

in method main
System.out.println(new example().isNumberOdd(1));

Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter =>  Example

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22649

On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:18:15 AM UTC-8, JLP wrote:
> Le 01/03/2013 08:22, odie4penname@gmail.com a écrit :
> 
> > Hello everyone,
> 
> > 
> 
> > I'd like to make sure I have done this correct. I am using BluJ:
> 
> > 
> 
> > Create a public boolean method named
> 
> > MynumberisOdd that takes an integer parameter named 
> 
> > num and returns a boolean value indicating whether num is Odd.
> 
> > 
> 
> > The method should check if num is odd and return true when the number is odd and false when the number is even
> 
> > 
> 
> > Here is what I have:
> 
> > 
> 
> > 
> 
> > public class example
> 
> > 
> 
> > {
> 
> >     public static void main(String [] args)
> 
> >     {
> 
> >         int x=1;
> 
> > 
> 
> >     }
> 
> > 
> 
> >     public boolean isNumberOdd (int num)
> 
> >     {
> 
> >         return num%2 !=0;
> 
> >         
> 
> > 
> 
> >         
> 
> >     }
> 
> > }
> 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> in method main
> 
> System.out.println(new example().isNumberOdd(1));
> 
> 
> 
> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter =>  Example

Thanks. I didn't mention this part of the requirements:


This method does NOT produce any output itself (it does NOT call print, println, or printf 
inside its method body—the calling code does that for the execution!).

Is this correct? This is what I have now:

public class Example

{
    public static void main(String [] args)
    {
        int x=1;
        
        System.out.println(new Example().isNumberOdd(1));
  

    }

    public boolean isNumberOdd (int num)
    {
        return num%2 !=0;
        

        
    }
}

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22650

On 3/1/2013 9:42 AM, odie4penname@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:18:15 AM UTC-8, JLP wrote:
>> Le 01/03/2013 08:22, odie4penname@gmail.com a écrit :
>>
>>> Create a public boolean method named
>>> MynumberisOdd [...]
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>
>>>      public boolean isNumberOdd (int num)
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^

     Actually, the name you have chosen is better than the
one the problem statement demands.  (See below.)

>> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter =>  Example

     A bit of context on this "must."  The Java language does
not require CapitalizedClassNames, nor camelCaseMethodNames,
and a Java implementation will accept and execute code that
uses other kinds of names.  However, there are widely-followed
conventions about how to write names for different kinds of
things: packages, classes, interfaces, methods, and so on.
Human readers are accustomed to these conventions and will
find code easier to read and understand if the conventions
are followed.  Bear in mind that code in any programming
language is written for two audiences: Computers and people.
Of the two, people are the more important.

> Is this correct? This is what I have now:
>
> public class Example
> {
>      public static void main(String [] args)
>      {
>          int x=1;

     `x' is never used; why is it here?

>          System.out.println(new Example().isNumberOdd(1));

     Did you mean `...isNumberOdd(x)', perhaps?  Also, if the
idea is to demonstrate that the method works correctly, it
might be a good idea to try a few other argument values: a good
set of test cases would probably include both odd and even
numbers, negative and positive numbers, and the special "edge
cases" 0, Integer.MAX_VALUE, and Integer.MIN_VALUE.

>      }
>
>      public boolean isNumberOdd (int num)
>      {
>          return num%2 !=0;
>      }
> }

     Looks all right to me.  Since the isNumberOdd() method
relies only on the value of its parameter and not upon any
"context" from an enclosing object, it might be slightly
better to write it as a `static' method and call it as such
(if you've learned about `static' yet).

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22659

 JLP wrote:
> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter 

Not "must", "should".

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22708

Le 01/03/2013 20:21, Lew a écrit :
>  JLP wrote:
>> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter 
> 
> Not "must", "should".
> 
Yes Lew. English is not my native language and i often confound must and
should.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22713

JLP wrote:
> Lew a écrit :
>>  JLP wrote:
>>> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter 
>> Not "must", "should".
> 
> Yes Lew. English is not my native language and i often confound must and
> should.

Native language or not, anyone in the programming world should be familiar with the 
distinction between these terms, as it is a major part of specification documentation, 
e.g., all RFCs.

This is not a question of knowing English but of knowing technical terms.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22714

Lew wrote:
> JLP wrote:
>> Lew a écrit :
>>>  JLP wrote:
>>>> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter 
>>> Not "must", "should".
> 
>> Yes Lew. English is not my native language and i often confound must and
>> should.
> 
> Native language or not, anyone in the programming world should be familiar with the 
> distinction between these terms, as it is a major part of specification documentation, 
> e.g., all RFCs.
> 
> This is not a question of knowing English but of knowing technical terms.

To help you with this, in technical language "must" is like "il faut que". It is mandatory.

"Should" is more like "devoir". It is an obligation, but not a necessity.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22718

Lew wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> JLP wrote:
>>> Lew a écrit :
>>>>  JLP wrote:
>>>>> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter 
>>>> Not "must", "should".
>> 
>>> Yes Lew. English is not my native language and i often confound must and
> >> should.
> 
> To help you with this, in technical language "must" is like "il faut que". It is mandatory.
> "Should" is more like "devoir". It is an obligation, but not a necessity.

Okay, after checking with a friend who's from France, I discover I'm wrong. "Should" is like "devrais/t". So "You SHOULD eat" is "Vous devriez manger", and "You MUST eat" is "Il vous faut manger."

He explained that "Vous devez manger" is like "You MUST eat" also.

I don't speak French well so I might not have it exactly right.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22721

Le 05/03/2013 00:06, Lew a écrit :
> Lew wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>> JLP wrote:
>>>> Lew a écrit :
>>>>>  JLP wrote:
>>>>>> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter 
>>>>> Not "must", "should".
>>>
>>>> Yes Lew. English is not my native language and i often confound must and
>>>> should.
>>
>> To help you with this, in technical language "must" is like "il faut que". It is mandatory.
>> "Should" is more like "devoir". It is an obligation, but not a necessity.
> 
> Okay, after checking with a friend who's from France, I discover I'm wrong. "Should" is like "devrais/t". So "You SHOULD eat" is "Vous devriez manger", and "You MUST eat" is "Il vous faut manger."
> 
> He explained that "Vous devez manger" is like "You MUST eat" also.
> 
> I don't speak French well so I might not have it exactly right.
> 
Thanks for French learning ;-) .
I recognize that my  fault is inexcusable (must/should) in technical terms.

must="doit" infinitive="devoir"
should="devrait" conditional time ,  infinitive="devoir" also . The
conditional time in French removes the mandatory aspect.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22759

On 3/4/2013 2:38 PM, Lew wrote:
> JLP wrote:
>> Lew a écrit :
>>>   JLP wrote:
>>>> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter
>>> Not "must", "should".
>>
>> Yes Lew. English is not my native language and i often confound must and
>> should.
>
> Native language or not, anyone in the programming world should be familiar with the
> distinction between these terms, as it is a major part of specification documentation,
> e.g., all RFCs.
>
> This is not a question of knowing English but of knowing technical terms.

Just in case:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22762

On 07/03/13 01:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 3/4/2013 2:38 PM, Lew wrote:
>> JLP wrote:
>>> Lew a écrit :
>>>> JLP wrote:
>>>>> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter
>>>> Not "must", "should".

[snip]

>> This is not a question of knowing English but of knowing technical terms.

Must and should are not 'technical terms' for goodness sake.

"Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of any field"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_terminology.

Must and should are not "the specialized vocabulary" of any field, are they?

 >> Lew

> Just in case:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt
>
> Arne

And of course you NEVER use these words incorrectly do you.

Why do you people consistently rubbish posters who's first language is 
not English. Does it make you feel good? are your sad little lives so 
empty that you need to project your misery onto others? Really, it is 
simply not acceptable in this day and age.

lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22790

On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:50:11 +0000, lipska the kat <"nospam at
neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

>On 07/03/13 01:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 3/4/2013 2:38 PM, Lew wrote:
>>> JLP wrote:
>>>> Lew a écrit :
>>>>> JLP wrote:
>>>>>> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter
>>>>> Not "must", "should".
>
>[snip]
>
>>> This is not a question of knowing English but of knowing technical terms.
>
>Must and should are not 'technical terms' for goodness sake.

     In an RFC, they are.

>"Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of any field"
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_terminology.
>
>Must and should are not "the specialized vocabulary" of any field, are they?

     If they have a precise definition for use in the field, then they
are.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22791

2013-03-07 18:58, Gene Wirchenko skrev:
> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:50:11 +0000, lipska the kat <"nospam at
> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
> 
>> On 07/03/13 01:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2013 2:38 PM, Lew wrote:
>>>> JLP wrote:
>>>>> Lew a écrit :
>>>>>> JLP wrote:
>>>>>>> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter
>>>>>> Not "must", "should".
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> This is not a question of knowing English but of knowing technical terms.
>>
>> Must and should are not 'technical terms' for goodness sake.
> 
>      In an RFC, they are.

They are usually written in upper case: MUST, SHOULD.
Lew's correction of JLP's "must" to "should" was helpful.

>> "Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of any field"
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_terminology.
>>
>> Must and should are not "the specialized vocabulary" of any field, are they?
> 
>      If they have a precise definition for use in the field, then they
> are.
> 
-- 
Lars Enderin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22797

On 07/03/13 18:24, Lars Enderin wrote:
> 2013-03-07 18:58, Gene Wirchenko skrev:
>> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:50:11 +0000, lipska the kat<"nospam at
>> neversurrender dot co dot uk">  wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/03/13 01:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2013 2:38 PM, Lew wrote:
>>>>> JLP wrote:
>>>>>> Lew a écrit :
>>>>>>> JLP wrote:
>>>>>>>> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter
>>>>>>> Not "must", "should".
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> This is not a question of knowing English but of knowing technical terms.
>>>
>>> Must and should are not 'technical terms' for goodness sake.
>>
>>       In an RFC, they are.
>
> They are usually written in upper case: MUST, SHOULD.
> Lew's correction of JLP's "must" to "should" was helpful.

Lars you pointless waste of space, long time no see.
Get your tongue out Lew's backside will you, it's not adding anything to 
the conversation.

lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22801

On 07/03/13 17:58, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:50:11 +0000, lipska the kat<"nospam at
> neversurrender dot co dot uk">  wrote:
>
>> On 07/03/13 01:19, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2013 2:38 PM, Lew wrote:
>>>> JLP wrote:
>>>>> Lew a écrit :
>>>>>> JLP wrote:
>>>>>>> Nota : Class names must start with a capital letter
>>>>>> Not "must", "should".
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> This is not a question of knowing English but of knowing technical terms.
>>
>> Must and should are not 'technical terms' for goodness sake.
>
>       In an RFC, they are.
>
>> "Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of any field"
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_terminology.
>>
>> Must and should are not "the specialized vocabulary" of any field, are they?
>
>       If they have a precise definition for use in the field, then they
> are.

Gene !!! my goodness, all the old faeces are here tonight aren't they.

Now listen *very carefully*

Must and should are *not* technical terms, really, they are common 
words. Granted the OP used them in a way that was technically incorrect 
but that doesn't make them technical terms does it?

Glad to see you back Gene, looking forward to many more opportunities to 
point out you misconceptions :-)

After all, that's what people do here isn't it?
And there's me thinking it was a language group.

lipska

-- 
Lipska the Kat©: Troll hunter, sandbox destroyer
and farscape dreamer of Aeryn Sun

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22929

On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:21:00 +0000, lipska the kat <"nospam at
neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:

[snip]

>Must and should are *not* technical terms, really, they are common 
>words. Granted the OP used them in a way that was technically incorrect 

     They are both.

>but that doesn't make them technical terms does it?

     Actually, it does make them technical terms.  Many words have
specialised technical meanings.  In an RFC, "must" and "should" are
technical terms.  Using anything other than the technical meaning is
wrong.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22930

On 3/12/2013 9:10 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Mar 2013 19:21:00 +0000, lipska the kat <"nospam at
> neversurrender dot co dot uk"> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Must and should are *not* technical terms, really, they are common
>> words. Granted the OP used them in a way that was technically incorrect
>
>       They are both.
>
>> but that doesn't make them technical terms does it?
>
>       Actually, it does make them technical terms.  Many words have
> specialised technical meanings.  In an RFC, "must" and "should" are
> technical terms.  Using anything other than the technical meaning is
> wrong.

Whether something is a technical term or not depends on context. If
someone is writing an RFC, they should use "must" and "should" they way
they are defined in that context, and readers will interpret them that way.

That does not make them technical terms in Usenet postings that are not
drafts of RFC material.

Patricia

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22931

On 3/12/2013 9:54 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> Whether something is a technical term or not depends on context.


Yes, context is something that seems to be lost or ignored here quite often.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22934

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:04:33 AM UTC-7, markspace wrote:
> On 3/12/2013 9:54 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> 
>> Whether something is a technical term or not depends on context.
> 
> Yes, context is something that seems to be lost or ignored here quite often.

This subthread started because of an assertion that class names in Java must start 
with a capital letter. This statement was not correct, by the normal understanding 
of the English word "must". Furthermore, it was a technical assertion about the rules 
of the Java language. As such it needed to be correct or corrected.

It is not relevant really what the word "must" means as a technical term, but it's helpful 
that the meaning is identical whether taken as "ordinary" English or precise terminology.

It is not a requirement of the Java language that class names begin with a capital letter.

However, as a matter of best practice, they should.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web