> On May 12, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Raymond DeCampo <r...@decampo.org> wrote: > > I still think that we should leave geometric concepts out of > commons-numbers.
Are we defining numbers using the fundamental theorem of Algebra? Maybe, that’s what should go in core? Clearly that would leave out the quaternions, matrices (which have an implicit geometrical bias), and other constructions out of numbers from the Complex Field. Just some thoughts… -Rob > > I also think we are chopping up the modules too fine. Here we have a > module with one class and an intention to maybe introduce another. > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> > wrote: > >> 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 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
