On 3/11/06, Paul Libbrecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would fear of a library providing such functionality be enormous... > any modularity in commons-math planned ? >
Good question, which comes up over and over again in [math]. That's why I suggested that we focus on primality testing, which is something with practical applications and that could define a more narrow scope. I don't see any harm in experimenting a little in this area. Could be I am wrong though and this will lead us off into a large amount of code. I am not a number theorist and have only passing familiarity with the algorithms for primality testing. WDYT? When you say "modularity" do you mean splitting up the jar artifacts produced? I thnk we have talked about that before and could be it will make sense eventually to do this. Do you think the 1.1 jar is too big? Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
