Al Chou wrote:
--- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brent Worden wrote:
Ok,
I tally (pre-apologies if I misrepresent anyone):
Four votes for 0-based indexing (Andrew, Kim, Mark, and Stephen).
Three votes for 1-based indexing (Al, Phil, and myself).
Should we go ahead with the 0-based change a
--- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brent Worden wrote:
> > Ok,
> >
> > I tally (pre-apologies if I misrepresent anyone):
> >
> > Four votes for 0-based indexing (Andrew, Kim, Mark, and Stephen).
> > Three votes for 1-based indexing (Al, Phil, and myself).
> >
> > Should we go ahead wit
r 02, 2004 2:44 AM
To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
Subject: RE: [MATH] Matrix indices
ditto below -
+1 for Zero based indices.
Principle of Least Astonishment and all that..
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Colebourne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 02 September 2004 08:42
move on.
Brent Worden
> -Original Message-
> From: Gray, Andrew (ITDA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 2:44 AM
> To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [MATH] Matrix indices
>
>
> ditto below -
> +1 for
If we have not succeeded in keeping things simple, we are certainly
open to improving documentation and / or providing wrappers or
simplified interfaces. If you have specific examples / suggestions
for improvement, please share these. We want to make the package as
easy to use a possible, while
--- "Mark R. Diggory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Al Chou wrote:
> > My personal preference would originally have been to use 1-based indexing
> > (actually, I really prefer Fortran's ability to let the user define the
> lower
> > bound index value in each array dimension if they so choose, even t
Phil Steitz wrote:
No, an array is not a mathematical object.
If you are a purist, yes, but for many people, they are roughly equivalent.
Here again, the point is that the math object should expose
properties consistent with its definition -- like any other Java
object. What is actually wrong here
Al Chou wrote:
My personal preference would originally have been to use 1-based indexing
(actually, I really prefer Fortran's ability to let the user define the lower
bound index value in each array dimension if they so choose, even though that
facility is not that often used), but that was based
Kim van der Linde wrote:
Phil,
Honestly, I think that if you make the argument that you want to use
Mathematical correct notations, you should start any array at 1.
No, an array is not a mathematical object.
If
everything (commons-math and JAVA itself) would be like that, fine, but
reality is th
Phil,
Honestly, I think that if you make the argument that you want to use
Mathematical correct notations, you should start any array at 1. If
everything (commons-math and JAVA itself) would be like that, fine, but
reality is that java is 0 based.
As long as you use only one system (Matrices an
I can give a couple other examples of matrices in java using 0 to n-1.
Colt:
http://dsd.lbl.gov/~hoschek/colt/api/cern/colt/matrix/DoubleMatrix2D.html
A matrix has a number of rows and columns, which are assigned upon
instance construction - The matrix's size is then rows()*columns().
Elements ar
Hi Phil,
With the 1 base system, I keep casting back and forth between the 0
based underlying java system and the 1 based matrix system. But only in
selected cases, not as a general rule. It also requires me to make
specific methods just to increase the row number by one, as the method
returns
Mark R. Diggory wrote:
I would recommend submitting a patch to the java files into bugzilla
with the changes in it.
Review the contributing documentation on the developers page:
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/math/developers.html
Post any questions you may have about contributing a patch.
Chee
I would recommend submitting a patch to the java files into bugzilla
with the changes in it.
Review the contributing documentation on the developers page:
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/math/developers.html
Post any questions you may have about contributing a patch.
Cheers,
-Mark
Kim van der L
Mark R. Diggory wrote:
I agree entirely with your argument. I would feel more comfortable with
0 to n-1.
Ok, how do I update the inproved class, as I did that already yesterday
evening. I would also like to add several new methods:
RealMatrix getSubMatrix (int startRow, int endRow, int startCol
I agree entirely with your argument. I would feel more comfortable with
0 to n-1.
-Mark
Kim van der Linde wrote:
Hi All,
I ran into a problem with the RealMatrixImpl class. The class is
designed such that it uses the default 1 to n counting for the rows and
columns. However, JAVA has as a defau
16 matches
Mail list logo
