On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 09:08:18 +0100, Eric Barnhill wrote:
It is overall a fine plan by me. A precision class makes more sense
than
duplicating equals methods.
From a practical standpoint I think it would be better to see
Quaternion in
its own subpackage than with Complex. Simply because I don't use them
and
packages are better maintained by those who use them.
It is hard to see how the transforms fit in. If anything they belong
with
the new sigproc libraries.
Fine.
Is there any objection on the name "Commons Numbers"?
Are there better matches for the intended scope? [Or do we want that
the scope grows to also contain the "o.a.c.math4.prime" package" and
possibly more of number-theoretic functionality (as was proposed some
time ago to be added to Commons Math)?]
Shall I wait a couple of days before filing the request with INFRA?
[I.e. to change the "git" repository, JIRA project and github mirror.]
Gilles
Eric
On 8 Jan 2017 10:17, "Gilles" <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
Hi.
How about renaming the component to "Commons Numbers" (or another
name
if preferred) that would contain the following modules:
* commons-numbers-core (with classes such as "Precision").
* commons-numbers-complex
* commons-numbers-quaternion
* commons-numbers-fraction
* commons-numbers-continued-fraction
* commons-numbers-fft (Fast Fourier Transform)
* commons-numbers-fct (Fast Cosine Transform)
* ...
?
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
