I see, you are recruiting maintainers -- nice try. I will think about it. Of course, I have my own ideas, for instance I think mixing symbolic and numeric capabilities in one package may be unfortunate.
Actually, I did a pull request for Calculus with a root finding function incl. Ridders' approach, bisection, and Brent-Dekker. But my programming style is strongly influenced by R and Matlab, so I wanted the maintainer of this package to have a look and propose changes and make it more Julia-like. Okay, as I said I will think about it. My main interest is optimization, still some advanced numerical functionality would be nice-to-have. Unfortunately, as everybody else here, I have other urgent task going on. Hans Werner On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:53:35 PM UTC+1, Tim Holy wrote: > > To me this sounds like a case for a fork: Hans doesn't yet feel confident > about > his Julia, but John wants to ditch maintainership. (Trust me John, I > _really_ > understand!) We need an organic way of "test-driving" a new maintainer. > Hans, > why don't you just fork it to your github account and start making > changes, > and let's see how it goes? > > A couple of tips: > - As you make changes, run the tests to see if they still pass, and you'll > have some reason to hope that you may not have broken anything. > - For any API changes, a way to be nice to users is to use the > `@deprecate` > macro. > > Adhering to those guidelines will make it easier for people to migrate to > your > package. If you get to the point of having something your proud of, rather > than submitting a pull request to John's package, just advertise it to the > list. That will begin the process of other people being able to test out > your > version, with no risk (John's will still be up, too). If all goes well, > you'll > eventually become the official maintainer. > > Hans, I already have a feature-request for you: spot checking particular > elements of the gradient. When I have a function of 10^6 variables, often > all > I want to do it get some indication that I've done my analytic calculation > of > the gradient correctly. Computing all 10^6 components is horrifically > slow, and > usually not necessary. > > --Tim > >
