+1
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 1:27 AM, Artem Barger wrote:
+1 [contributor]
Best regards,
Artem Barger.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Rob Tompkins wrote:
> +1 [contributor, not committer]
>
> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 6:23 AM, Gilles
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Jun
+1 [contributor]
Best regards,
Artem Barger.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Rob Tompkins wrote:
> +1 [contributor, not committer]
>
> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 6:23 AM, Gilles
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 03:55:35 + (UTC), venkatesha m wrote:
> >> Does this use J
+1 [contributor, not committer]
> On Jun 27, 2016, at 6:23 AM, Gilles wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 03:55:35 + (UTC), venkatesha m wrote:
>> Does this use Java 8?
>
> What is "this"?
>
> If you want to discuss (rather than vote), please start a new
> thread.
>
> Thank you,
> Gilles
>
>
On Mon, 27 Jun 2016 03:55:35 + (UTC), venkatesha m wrote:
Does this use Java 8?
What is "this"?
If you want to discuss (rather than vote), please start a new
thread.
Thank you,
Gilles
On Monday, 27 June 2016 2:20 AM, Gilles
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:13:06 -0400, Rob Tompkin
Does this use Java 8?
On Monday, 27 June 2016 2:20 AM, Gilles
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:13:06 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Gilles
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:35:38 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Gary G
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:13:06 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
On Jun 26, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Gilles
wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:35:38 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
One could argue that since Java has java.util.Random, Commons Lang
could
incl
> On Jun 26, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Gilles wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:35:38 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Gary Gregory
>>> wrote:
>>> One could argue that since Java has java.util.Random, Commons Lang could
>>> include a random package.
Yes, and it fe
On Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:35:38 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Gary Gregory
wrote:
One could argue that since Java has java.util.Random, Commons Lang
could
include a random package.
For the same reason, [io] might be moved to [lang], too.
And [compress], [crypt
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> One could argue that since Java has java.util.Random, Commons Lang could
> include a random package.
For the same reason, [io] might be moved to [lang], too.
Jochen
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keysto
One could argue that since Java has java.util.Random, Commons Lang could
include a random package.
Gary
On Jun 25, 2016 9:06 AM, "Gilles" wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:01:14 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
>> +0
>>
>> The big mix of stuff here makes it feel like Commons Math Lite,
>>
>
> H
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:01:14 +0100, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
+0
The big mix of stuff here makes it feel like Commons Math Lite,
Hmm, no; it's certainly more akin to... Commons Lang, but
more focused (on numerical utilities) and much leaner!
Actually, the big code chunk is, by far, "FastMath
+0
The big mix of stuff here makes it feel like Commons Math Lite, so I would
not decide on this before the Math TLP/Incubator route is settled (or
abandoned).
On 21 Jun 2016 8:30 p.m., "Gilles" wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
> out of fu
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:45:33 +, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
+/- 0 I'm unsure.
We already have some Math code in Commons Lang. Maybe this code would
fit
into o.a.c.lang3.math ?
In principle, yes, but I'd be wary of a big codebase that becomes less
and less focused.
I think that whatever is a
+/- 0 I'm unsure.
We already have some Math code in Commons Lang. Maybe this code would fit
into o.a.c.lang3.math ?
OTOH it's a big codebase, it may make sense to make a separate component
out of it.
The scope is pretty math centric. So a Math TLP may be a better home for
this.
Benedikt
Gilles
Le 21/06/2016 à 21:30, Gilles a écrit :
> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
> Standard mathematical functions (either missing from "java.lang.Math",
> or faster or more accurate than their counterpart in the JDK) and
> floating point utilities.
-0, I don't feel the scop
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Gilles
wrote:
> Hello.
>
> This is one of several votes for establishing new Commons components
> out of functionality developed inside the "Commons Math" component.
>
> This vote is dedicated to the following functionality:
> Standard mathematical functions (e
16 matches
Mail list logo
