On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 15:57:51 +0100, Thomas Neidhart wrote:
On 01/17/2016 02:34 PM, Gilles wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 10:56:38 +0100, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 16/01/2016 16:51, Gilles a écrit :
[...]
So I would suggest that rather than adding a parallel rng package,
which reminds me of the difficulties we get with the two optim and
optimization packages, you continue doing your changes directly
in the random package as you started to do, but in a feature
branch.
Sorry, but I don't agree.
I've explained that I want to propose as a *replacement* to
"random".
Almost every file will be changed, and a basic requirement is to
have
the RNGs, and only the RNGs, in their own package/module.
So for example, "RandomDataGenerator" and "ValueServer", as "users"
of the RNGs, should not be in the "rng" package (but but stay in
"random" whatever else changed or delete there).
This situation here cannot be more different than for the "optim"
package!
First, the old "optimization" _has_ been deleted in "master"; we
had to keep it in the 3.x line.
The code in "optim" has been been criticized but until now nobody
came up with a better proposal, so the only working code must
obviously stay.
Afaicr we all agreed on going forward with the design as implemented
for
the least-squares optimizer by Evan?
Yes.
What I meant is that the current code can run, and that nobody came
up with an alternative that can also run...
Gilles
Thomas
For "rng", I'll propose a working remplacement, and we'll be able
to immediately decide whether to keep "random" as is or adapt it
in order to remove the redundancy with the new "rng" and/or write
some adaptation layers from "random" to "rng".
Best regards,
Gilles
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
