Phil,
Phil Steitz wrote:
Kim,
Can you be more explicit? Most of your objections were addressed in RC1.
Some of my objections were resolved. The matrix stuff was partially resolved, as is the name of the regression, which is still in the wrong package. Furthermore, the different types of variances remains unsolved, as they are variant's of each other and should be in one single class. And I differ in the basic idea of dealing with regression types (LS, MRA MA). And I think the random class should be either eliminated (bad random) or be replaced with something more robust so that is actually usefull to be used for serious scientific work. Finally, I start doubting more and more the way most methods are implemented trough interfaces, which makes less and less sense to me the longer I deal with them.
I think this is sufficient reason NOT to release it!
Anyway, I encounter more and more programming issues with commons.math, but I do not report them anymore, because I do not want to go back to your source code.
I recently made some changes in my Matrix class to reduce the overload in the methods, such as frequently calling of getRowDimension/getColumnDimension methods at places where shorter methods were available. And I probably reduce the overload even further by defining a rows and a columns variables were the dimensions are stored in immediatly, reducing the number of length calls (although I have not really a good feeling yet how much that will do in speed). I actually am contenplating to make a sister class calles MatrixArray which does the exact smae things, but is directly double[][] driven.
Furthermore, I have written a PCA module, which is incompatable with commons.math as it allows both types of variances, just as the variance-covariance matrix method.
Kim
-- http://www.kimvdlinde.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
