> On Jan 31, 2018, at 5:55 PM, Gilles <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 15:04:50 +0100, Eric Barnhill wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Gilles <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Eric. >>> >>> It would be great if we could either resolve the following issues >>> or have a path forward for them that would not block the release >>> of "Commons Numbers": >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-1445 >> >> >> So, to resolve this I should remove some of the Complex libraries from >> math-4 > > Yes. > >> or math-3.x > > No. [Branch "MATH_3_X" is way too old.]
It feels a bit heavy handed to call the branch containing the latest release “old.” Sure we have substantive work that’s diverged from that branch, but it still remains the latest publicly available consumable artifact and thus warrants minimally security fixes if not considerably value. > >> and replace them with a dependency on Numbers? > > Right. > >> Just want >> to check if I understand. > > CM is a testing ground: CM algorithms that use concepts that were > re-implemented in in "Numbers" should work as they did when those > concepts were implemented in CM. > When the unit tests still pass, it increases the confidence that > the ported code works as expected. > >> Not all of the old numbers functionality was >> brought over (e.g. ComplexField). > > Indeed. > There's work about "Field" in a separate branch: see issue > NUMBERS-51. I'll write another post about it. > > However, a lot of code does not need "Field". > In particular, "ComplexField" is never used. > >> Also how does this impede release of >> Numbers. > > It doesn't. > But we don't want to leave a bug that could have been > spotted by usage, as mentioned above. > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-54 >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-2 >> >> >> So ComplexUtils should be converted Java 8 syntax too. Well, might as well >> do it at the same time. I'll be a proper streaming expert by the end of all >> of it. > > It's a suggestion. What do you think? > IMHO, we should avoid bloating the API, especially if a > better alternative can be proposed (possibly in v1.1). > I'd thus propose to not ship the first release with > "ComplexUtils". Also, it's a higher-level code that might > deserve to be put in its own package/module (to depend on > "commons-numbers-complex". > > Regards, > Gilles > >> >> >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/NUMBERS-17 >> >> >> Comment added to JIRA, this can be closed. >> >> Eric > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
