2012/5/9 Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>: >> >> the patch for the proposed modification has been attached to the >> >> MATH-753 ticket. Thanks for your comments! >> >> >> > >> > What I have seen in the patch, you remove duplicated code by using the >> > already existing lanczos function, and create an additional function for >> > the constant. >> > >> In fact, I've realized that I have accidentally committed the >> lanczos() function in r1334315, which has nothing to do with this >> matter (that revision was about MATH-784). In fact, double >> lanczos(double) is indeed new. >> I will try to revert the change in Gamma in r1334315, and commit it in >> a new revision, once we all agree that double lanczos(double) can be >> exposed. >> >> So the question is: do you like this function lanczos (and its >> Javadoc) or not. Do you agree with this method being public? > > "public" is preferrable to duplicate code (if that's the question...). > I guess it is the question... Code duplication vs. exposing a little bit of the internals of Gamma. I will commit the patch.
> > Gilles > >> [...] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
