[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What needs to be changed? Is the javax.vecmath specification stable? Is
> > this something that would basically be left alone after it was done?
>
> My implementation was for the vecmath pre-release. It was early beta-docs
> it was based on...I never updated to the final release. I don't think
> the changes will be anything big...
Thanks for the info.
I know that there has been some debate about including standard extensions
in Classpath. I don't necessarily have a problem with it as long as it
doesn't divert resources from higher priority tasks like completing the core
library. If Niles gets this up to spec and stable, and is willing to be the
maintainer, I don't see any reason we can't include it. Does anyone else
have an opinion?
BTW: Thanks for writing this package and volunteering to maintain it.
--
Aaron M. Renn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.urbanophile.com/arenn/
