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 i
On Thu, 11 May 2017 13:45:28 -0400, Raymond DeCampo 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
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 Pl
Hi all
we've added a whole lot of new features in git.
Compress 1.14 RC1 is available for review here:
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/compress/ (svn revision
19628)
The tag is 1.14-RC1 (92708a964) on commit dd7c770:
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=commons-comp
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/commons-compress/pull/24
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the featur
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 o
Looks like we're all in violent agreement then.
On May 11, 2017 11:19 AM, "Matt Sicker" wrote:
> I meant this:
>
> @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
> public static ImmutablePair nullPair() {
> return (ImmutablePair) NULL;
> }
>
> On 11 May 2017 at 11:17, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 11
I meant this:
@SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public static ImmutablePair nullPair() {
return (ImmutablePair) NULL;
}
On 11 May 2017 at 11:17, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
>
> > On May 11, 2017 1:03 AM, "Gary Gregory" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 1
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> On May 11, 2017 1:03 AM, "Gary Gregory" wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> > Matching the of() static factories, how about ImmutablePair.ofNull()
> >
>
> I like it but at the same time it feels to me like I a
Exactly.
-Original Message-
From: Gary Gregory [mailto:garydgreg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 5:29 PM
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [COMPRESS] Anyone implemented "pigz"?
I think the question is can/should [Compress] use any of the stock code in
java.util.zip in
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
On May 11, 2017 1:03 AM, "Gary Gregory" wrote:
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> Matching the of() static factories, how about ImmutablePair.ofNull()
>
I like it but at the same time it feels to me like I am getting a NEW
object like ImmutablePair.of(x, y) give me a new ob
12 matches
Mail list logo
