On 9/10/11 3:19 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > Sounds great. > > Especially if the implementation of the sub-class is deferred until the > first is completed.
What exactly do you mean by "the first is completed" - reverting what is in trunk now to eliminate the checks / recodes that it does? Phil > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Gilles Sadowski < > gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > >> Hello. >> >> Coming back to this with a simple idea that may hopefully satisfy everyone. >> >> What do you think of having one class that performs all operations by >> directly applying the computational formulae, without worrying about NaN >> or infinities. This would be represent the complex field, would be simple >> and most efficient for general use (not involving limiting cases), would be >> documented as "producing undefined results in limiting cases" or "producing >> the results expected from direct application of the formulae". The latter >> would probably automatically keep track of all combinations of NaNs and >> infinities (as seems to be the case in Octave). >> >> In a subclass of the above one, we would attempt to get a completely >> consistent representation of the extended complex numbers (one point at >> infinity). It would thus contain all the special handling of the limiting >> cases of the current "Complex" class (plus all the missing ones and related >> bug fixes). >> >> >> Regards, >> Gilles >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
