On 28 April 2015 at 05:22, Mikera <mike.r.anderson...@gmail.com> wrote: > Complex numbers are tricky because: > - They need to be fast in order to be useful for numerical computing. The > "obvious" implementations that you might create with boxed values, > vectors/maps, multimethods and protocols are likely to be unacceptable for > many use cases > - You still want to be able to use them in a generic way, with operations > that play nicely with other values (Doubles etc.) > > I have thought about this a lot w.r.t. core.matrix and have come to the > conclusion that there is no simple, elegant answer that meets all use cases. > > What I'd like to suggest is: > a) The community converge on a single, minimal, lightweight representation > for a boxed complex scalar value. This is probably best as a Java class (for > easy interop with Java libraries). I think > http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-math/apidocs/org/apache/commons/math3/complex/Complex.html > is a good candidate > b) A lightweight wrapper library that provides nice complex functions in > Clojure, using the above type. Nothing fancy. But can make extensive use of > type hints etc. for performance so should be pretty fast
If somebody wrapped the commons math 3 complex library, what would count as good performance? Alan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
