2010 15:25
> To: Commons Developers List
> Subject: Re: [lang] Divesting the commons.lang.math package
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Stephen Colebourne
> wrote:
> > Divest? I object to removing Fraction from [lang], as its a very core
> > concept tat is missing f
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Stephen Colebourne
wrote:
> Divest? I object to removing Fraction from [lang], as its a very core
> concept tat is missing from the JDK. And thee are many users who would just
> want Fraction and none of the rest of the [math] library.
Having people to import Comm
Divest? I object to removing Fraction from [lang], as its a very core
concept tat is missing from the JDK. And thee are many users who would
just want Fraction and none of the rest of the [math] library.
The [lang] maths package is fo non-mathematicians. The [math] library is
for serious mathe
Without any further input (over a week), I say it's safe to divest.
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Henri Yandell a écrit :
>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>> This is how I believe the commons.lang.math package can be eliminated.
>>> Based on the c
Henri Yandell a écrit :
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>> This is how I believe the commons.lang.math package can be eliminated.
>> Based on the current 3.0-SNAPSHOT API, there are only three classes
>> left:
>>
>> Fraction
>> IEEE754rUtils
>> NumberUtils
>>
>> 1) Fraction
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> This is how I believe the commons.lang.math package can be eliminated.
> Based on the current 3.0-SNAPSHOT API, there are only three classes
> left:
>
> Fraction
> IEEE754rUtils
> NumberUtils
>
> 1) Fraction should leave; it is completely inap
