On Thu, 11 May 2017 22:39:16 +0200, Gilles wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2017 01:43:24 +0530, Amey Jadiye wrote:
Agreed with Raymond +1
If we want to make things modular I would prefer core should have
very core
part of numbers in CN which were in Commons Math and already
separated in
from CM to CN, as Angle is the part of geometry the package for it
should
be like.
package some.pkg.geometry.core;
IMHO PlaneAngle should be part of geometry.
It is at the core of "geometry", but some basic functionalities can
be seen as "number-like", and be useful without having to depend on
a full-fledged geometry library.
That said, we can nevertheless consider whether "PlaneAngle" should
be defined in another module (rather than in "commons-numbers-core").
Do you think of other functionalities that would be grouped with
"PlaneAngle" within their own module?
[Perhaps that the potential of a future feature such as "SolidAngle"
is already worth creating a "commons-numbers-angle" module].
Regards,
Gilles
Regards,
Gilles
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Raymond DeCampo <r...@decampo.org>
wrote:
My first thought is that adding geometry to commons-numbers is too
much
"scope creep" for lack of a better term. There's a lot of code
under the
org.apache.commons.math4.geometry package in CM.
I guess I am wondering where we want to draw the line. Obviously
we do not
want all of CM in numbers or we will be back where we started when
we began
splitting it up.
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Please have a look at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-37
>
> Comments, suggestions, objections?
>
> Regards,
> Gilles
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
