Honestly, I really wonder why all this stuff has to fork yet another commons component. IMO, CM could just have been changed to emit multiple jar files with no need for other components. No need for discussions, no need for new repositories in Git, no need for new stuff in Jira. Or, to put it different: Less to maintain.
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Eric Barnhill <ericbarnh...@gmail.com> wrote: > As the recent contribution shows the commons-math complex library remains > quite useful to many applications. > > Following in the footsteps of commons-rng, commons-complex seems like a > good next component of math to spin out and actively maintain. I am willing > to oversee and maintain the project. > > It may be that as I get into it, complex will have dependencies that more > properly belong in a core library. I propose to just get started on the > library and sort these issues as they come up. > > I would take the following positions as regards this library: > > - Add syntactic sugar so that typical C++ calls are compatible: yes > - Keep completely backwards compatible: yes > - Follow the C++ architecture including an Imaginary data type with its own > behavior: no > - Like C++, incorporate complex typing other than double: no > > -Eric -- The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!" http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
