RE: [Quantlib-dev] Swap Ratehelper

[Ferdinando A. <fer...@am...>]

At 07:08 PM 4/30/2002 +0100, Luigi Ballabio wrote:
>I'd like to think that at release 0.3.0 we are still free to change our 
>minds if we see a drawback in our earlier choices
Sure! On of the reason this dev list exists is to have here the guys who 
actually develop and use QuantLib. QuantLib must fit our needs, so as long 
as it's OK for us I wouldn't mind about generic potential complaints

>I would add a new constructor with the parameters in the right order and 
>maybe deprecate the old one in order to remove it in the next release. [...]
>Also, I would put the common initialization code in a private initialize() 
>method that both constructors would call, much like you did with the 
>CompoundForward constructors.
OK

>Anyway, mine is just one vote, and we are quite a few now.
but you know very well that not all votes are equally weighted, and your 
vote deserves quite a high weight ;-)

ciao -- Nando