I’ve dropped the static equals methods and reciprocal and pushed the updated
class with MathJax.
I put MathJax in whenever possible. This may be a bit too much. The rendered
javadoc looks good but the javadoc rendered by my IDE without MathJax support
can be very unreadable.
Have a look at the built javadocs and through an IDE and let me know your
opinions on the current usage.
It may be better to drop some use of MathJax such as \( z \) for {@code z}
which would make the code more readable in an IDE when programming.
I’ve not explicitly laid out the latex equations for unparsed readability so
some improvements could be made. However some equations are multi-line which
gets wrapped to a single line if pure HTML without MathJax. For example see
atanh and acos. I do not know how to lay this out to make it readable without
MathJax. So perhaps a note in the class javadoc that the use of MathJax is
required to read the formatted equations.
On another c++ note the documentation for the C99 functions on C++ reference
lists the special return values, e.g. [1]. This is similar to the special
return values listed in java.util.Math for functions, e.g. [2]. I think it
would be good to add these to the javadoc. It should be a simple cut and
reformat from the ISO C99 Annex G that the class has been tested against.
[1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/numeric/complex/cacos
<https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/numeric/complex/cacos>
[2]
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Math.html#atan2-double-double-
<https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Math.html#atan2-double-double->
Alex
