On 21 January 2011 13:19, Gilles Sadowski <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello. > > When proposing code, I think that you might get better attention by posting > to the "dev" ML. > >> I changed the license for my code and wrote some junit tests while >> refactoring. >> >> I think there are many improvements since I originally emailed. I have not >> had any off list expressions of interest and I wonder if there is yet any >> other interest in making this available as part of Commons Math? > > If the functionality is desired (let's wait for the others to answer this), > there would nevertheless be quite some changes needed for the code to fit in > Commons Math; a few things I noticed by glancing at the source: > > * "main" methods > * access to "System.out" for printing > * not fully documented > * class names contain an underscore
Also package names are not org.apache.commons.mathx. There are also some @author tags which ought to be removed - credit can be give elsewhere. [Author tags quickly become unmanageable in code that is developed by a community] >> [...] >> >> The main reason I developed this code was that I needed to raise a >> BigDecimal to the power of another BigDecimal. Dealing with all the >> different cases has been a challenge. Although I'm not 100% confident I have >> handled every case, I'm reasonably happy with this effort. >> >> In terms of junit tests: where the expected result was not obvious to me and >> I could think of no obvious other way to calculate it using the java core >> code, I have used results returned from my methods to set expected results. >> This is better than nothing, but developers of this code should be warned >> that test failures may be a result of original errors rather than as a >> consequence of changes they have made. I wonder if there are some canonical >> math compliance test data that I should use... I was thinking that I should >> document or use some attribution or something to distinguish the different >> types of test if I got this far. >> >> Does anyone have any good advice for me at this stage? > > It certainly would be better to compare with the results of another library. > At least, the "self-tests" should be marked as such. > > I know that Perl has "Math::BigInt" and "Math::BigFloat" modules that might > be used to compute independent results. Also, some of the test cases are very large - it's better to have lots of smaller tests, so all errors can be found at once. > > Thanks, > Gilles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
