"Phil Steitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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? >
Actually, I am a number theorist (by training, not my day-job :). I'm interested enough that I could review submissions in this area. Of course, I have karma to commit them as well, but I don't like to step on toes for projects that I haven't really been active in ;-). >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]
