On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:13:32AM -0500, Phil Steitz wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:48 AM, Gilles Sadowski > <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > >> What functions are you talking about? > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalised_logistic_function > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_function > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function > > ... > > > OK. The third one may be pretty much already available via Erf in the > special package, but I am OK adding it explicitly. > > What might make sense is to define a new top-level package, "function" > or "functions" and make "special" a subpackage of that and either > classify the new ones in some way or put them in a subpackage called > something like "common". I don't think the ones you have above belong > in special; but like those in special today, they may end up having > wide use across other packages, hence the placement in a top-level > functions package.
I think that it would be a bit unnatural that the "function" package is at the top-level because it contains classes that implement "UnivariateRealFunction" or "BivariateRealFunction", and those are defined in "analysis". Or maybe you want to move the interface definitions to the "function" package? Although the functions in "special" are also functions, the implementations have nothing in common, e.g. those in "special" do not refer to the interfaces defined in "analysis". Of course, if you mean that we should refactor the classes in package "special"... It would imply to have one function object for each of the static functions currently defined in the classes of the package "special". I could open an issue so that we further discuss the options after 2.2 is released. Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
