On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Gilles <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2016 02:58:27 +0300, Artem Barger wrote: > >> Methods "getMinValue()", "getMinIndex()". >>> >>> Important note: any contribution should be based on the contents of >>> the "develop" branch, not "master". See file >>> doc/development/development.howto.txt >>> in the source tree. >>> >>> >>> So in order to use them I need to instantiate a RealVector, right? >> > > Yes. > And the iteration is probably not efficient since it use the > high-level API. > > Hence I think the question whenever to add static method w/ >> similar functionality to MathArrays class is still valid, especially if >> I can enhance it to accept array or list of Comparables or to accept >> Comparator as an additional parameter. >> > > Yes. > But perhaps a more general functionality would be useful. > General? Could you give an example? Aren't these enough? public static <T extends Comparable<T>> T min(T...array); public static <T extends Comparable<T>> T max(T...array); public static <T extends Comparable<T>> int argmin(T...array); public static <T extends Comparable<T>> int argmax(T...array); > Especially with the new Java 8 function types. > It's easy to implement having Java 8 function types, not sure I'm following you w/ how it could affect the API's of proposed methods. I think I will submit a JIRA ticket w/ these and submit a patch, reviewing it we will be able to eventually come to some reasonable solution. Anyway if such functionality is already exist in "RealVector", I guess >>> >>>> there is no point of adding >>>> it to MathArrays, unless RealVector should be refactored and >>>> functionality >>>> should be removed from >>>> there. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, refactored it should be: >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-765 >>> >>> >>> It says that these methods to be removed from RealVector. >> > > A pity that what it says did not occur. :-} > :))) Best, Artem Barger.
