On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 15:00:55 -0700, Gary Gregory wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Eric Barnhill
<[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Gary Gregory
<[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> I am against this constant spinning out.
>
> Gary
>
>
The proposed commons-filter is not a spin out. There was one filter
in math
and it didn't belong there. Now we have at least couple of people
around
who know signal processing and would like to make a commons-filter
package.
Virtually none of which is coming from commons-math except
dependencies.
Does such a package suit commons? I think so. Filtering is needed
from
image processing to statistics. Others can vote no if they disagree.
Complex was in math too. Did it belong there? In C++ or Python,
complex is
just another data type, like String. Its placement in math was not
straightforward. A self contained component to handle complex data
types
seems more sensible to me than having it in Math. In any case Gilles
is
making me a branch to populate, so that I can propose this component
later,
IIUC.
It sounds like you can create your new component on top of math4,
correct?
Would you rather reply to the technical arguments put forward in the
preceding paragraph?
I've already answered your question many times (see the archive).
You do not need anything else? Aside from a better component name
IMO.
"filter" is way to generic for me.
Is that the crux of the matter?
"Math" wasn't too generic perhaps?
Gilles
Gary
Eric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
