I agree the solvers don't seem to be in the scope. The MathArrays are a great idea but could use some rethinking.
First of all there are leftover references to classes like Field that have disappeared with the larger math framework and these should go. Also, there are a lot of basic array-wise operations that might benefit from inclusion. To pick an example at random, element-by-element cosine. In fact I already have a whole library of these (very simple) methods for up to 3 dimensions which I would be happy to contribute. My understanding is that such operations can be accomplished elegantly with lambdas now. But speaking only for myself, I tend to stick to "old school" Java syntax and I know I find these methods very useful. If there was general agreement on inclusion of MathArrays, I am happy to work on it. Eric On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Shouldn't [numbers] focus only on number structures (fractions, complex) > and the basic operations on them? I'm not sure the solvers fit in the > scope. > > Emmanuel Bourg > > Le 30/01/2017 à 02:17, Gilles a écrit : > > Hi. > > > > Anyone has a statement about it? > > > > Functionalities that are candidates to be moved from "Math" > > to "Numbers": > > * FastMath > > * CombinatoricsUtils [1] > > * ContinuedFraction [1] > > * special functions [1] > > * solvers > > * MathArrays [2] > > * MathUtils [1] > > * ... > > > > Thanks, > > Gilles > > > > [1] With redesigned API (e.g. to allow usage as Java8 functional > > interface). > > [2] Partly (e.g. "linearCombination"). > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > >
