2) +1
3) +0 (I can see that it might be more logical to implement it after 1.0, but them I would be in favour of dropping PNRG all together in this release.)
4) +1
5) neutral, I can see the rational behind it, but I also see that it is not the general way many packages like the java(x) core classes itself are made. I can see that there might be good solid reasons (which I do not entierly get) to do it that way despite that I personally do not like it. But I can live with that.
Kim
The following changes have been suggested recently. Before cutting 1.0 final, we should make sure we are all OK postponing or forgoing these:
1) Eliminate the univariate/multivariate distinction in the stat package, because this seems confusing to some. Change .univariate to .descriptive and .multivariate to .regression
2) Add methods to create row or column matrices from double arrays and to extract submatrices (to the interface itself, rather than adding these to a utils class later)
3) Make the PRNG fully pluggable in the random package.
4) Modify Variance and StandardDeviation to compute multiple statistics (with the variants being population, rather than sample statistics).
5) Drop the interface / implementation separation throughout the package.
I am personally -1 on 4) and 5); -0 on 1) and 2); and +0 on 3). I voted +1 on the release; however, which means that 3) is a wart that I am willing to live with for 1.0. It can be worked around now and to fix it correctly will require that we define a PRNG interface and introduce factories, etc.
Mark, since you voted to reopen API discussion, can you weigh in on these issues and add any others that you see as show-stoppers?
Phil
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- http://www.kimvdlinde.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
