Le jeu. 7 nov. 2019 à 18:36, Eric Barnhill <ericbarnh...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > I should also add on this note, my use case for developing ComplexUtils in > the first place was compatibility with JTransforms and JOCL. In both cases > I wanted to convert Complex[] arrays into interleaved double[] arrays to > feed into algorithms using those libraries.
Implicit in my remark below is the question: Where does the "Complex[]" come from? If it is never a good idea to create such an array, why provide code to convert from it? Do we agree that we should rather create the "ComplexList" abstraction, including accessors that shape the data for use with e.g. JTransforms? Regards, Gilles > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 9:34 AM Eric Barnhill <ericbarnh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 6:09 AM Gilles Sadowski <gillese...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> > >> This is also what started this thread: The user called the Commons Math's > >> FFT utilities using arrays of "Complex" objects and got the "OutOfMemory" > >> error. Hence the question of whether storing many "Complex" objects is > >> ever useful, as compared to the "ComplexList", backed with an array of > >> primitives, and instantiating transient "Complex" instances on-demand. > >> > > > > I'm glad it has provoked such improvements. As you implicitly reference in > > your reply, probably we should just be shading JTransforms in the first > > place. I started using JTransforms because I had trouble using the > > commons-math FFT as well. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
