Re: [Numbers] Arrays of "Complex" objects and RAM

Le dim. 10 nov. 2019 à 00:33, Alex Herbert a écrit : > > > > > On 9 Nov 2019, at 18:10, Alex Herbert wrote: > > > > > > > >> On 9 Nov 2019, at 12:23, Gilles Sadowski >> > wrote: > >> > >>> Snip > >> > >> I think that I tried > >> $ mvn

Re: [Numbers] Arrays of "Complex" objects and RAM

> On 9 Nov 2019, at 18:10, Alex Herbert wrote: > > > >> On 9 Nov 2019, at 12:23, Gilles Sadowski > > wrote: >> >>> Snip >> >> I think that I tried >> $ mvn -Dcheckstyle.failOnViolation=false test >> >> And still it wouldn't run the test (because I had

Re: [Numbers] Arrays of "Complex" objects and RAM

> On 9 Nov 2019, at 12:23, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > >> Snip > > I think that I tried > $ mvn -Dcheckstyle.failOnViolation=false test > > And still it wouldn't run the test (because I had introduced the > "System.out" forbidden construct). Checkstyle is configured to run in the validate

Re: [Numbers] Arrays of "Complex" objects and RAM

> On 9 Nov 2019, at 12:23, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > Hello Alex. > [...] I think at least the minimum implementation of the abstraction will be fairly easy. It can then be performance checked with a few variants. There currently is not a JMH module for numbers.

Re: [Numbers] Arrays of "Complex" objects and RAM

Hello Alex. >>> [...] >>> I think at least the minimum implementation of the abstraction will be >>> fairly easy. It can then be performance checked with a few variants. >>> >>> There currently is not a JMH module for numbers. Should I create one >>> under a module included with an optional

Re: [Numbers] Arrays of "Complex" objects and RAM

> On 9 Nov 2019, at 02:42, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > Hi. > > Le sam. 9 nov. 2019 à 01:48, Alex Herbert > a écrit : >> >> >> >>> On 7 Nov 2019, at 23:29, Eric Barnhill wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019 at 3:25 PM Gilles Sadowski wrote: >>> Le