Re: [math] Complex implementation

2003-11-02 Thread Mark R. Diggory
I believe its only the main common site that not rebuilt. Everything else is in place http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/math/index.html http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons/math/ Brent Worden wrote: FYI, I wrote some unit tests for ComplexMath and found some bugs in my implementation.

RE: [math] Complex implementation

2003-11-01 Thread Brent Worden
FYI, I wrote some unit tests for ComplexMath and found some bugs in my implementation. I have a patch containing the tests and bug fixes ready to submit. However, I noticed commons doesn't have a math component listed yet, so I was going to hold off on submitting the patch. If anyone is interest

Re: [math] Complex implementation

2003-10-30 Thread Mark R. Diggory
ta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [math] Complex implementation Mark R. Diggory wrote: I think the hesitancy was simply out of manpower and in interest of getting out a release soon. I'm somewhat surprised that Phil's Complex implementation didn't get added if he had alr

RE: [math] Complex implementation

2003-10-30 Thread Endo, Roger
Original Message- > From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 7:39 PM > To: Mark R. Diggory > Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [math] Complex implementation > > > Mark R. Diggory wrote: > > I think the hesit

Re: [math] Complex implementation

2003-10-27 Thread Mark R. Diggory
From: Brent Worden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:53 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: RE: [math] Complex implementation I know we've talked about this before, It's not fresh in my mind why we decided against it. -Mark Looking back at the m

Re: [math] Complex implementation

2003-10-22 Thread Mark R. Diggory
: Brent Worden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:53 PM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: RE: [math] Complex implementation I know we've talked about this before, It's not fresh in my mind why we decided against it. -Mark Looking back at the mail a

Re: [math] Complex implementation

2003-10-22 Thread Henri Yandell
gt; > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: Brent Worden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 10:53 PM > >>To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > >>Subject: RE: [math] Complex implementation > >> > >> &g

Re: [math] Complex implementation

2003-10-22 Thread Mark R. Diggory
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: RE: [math] Complex implementation I know we've talked about this before, It's not fresh in my mind why we decided against it. -Mark Looking back at the mail archives, it appears we decided against a complex class mainly for two reasons: 1) Not too

Re: [math] Complex implementation

2003-10-16 Thread J.Pietschmann
Mark R. Diggory wrote: Not to suggest I'm not for creating a Complex class, I just know we have issues. Well, and *all* these issues have been discussed to death in the C++ community before. While the FORTRAN folks were laughing. Main points: in order to make a Complex class useful, you need - a c

Re: [math] Complex implementation

2003-10-16 Thread Mark R. Diggory
Henri, I know we've talked about this before, It's not fresh in my mind why we decided against it. Some thoughts: http://www.ipd.uka.de/JavaParty/cj/ http://aspen.ucs.indiana.edu/CandCPandE/jg99papers/C445JGFSIcomplexphilippsenFINAL/resubmitC445/complexe.pdf I'm worried that we'ed be re-inventi

Re: [math] Complex implementation

2003-10-15 Thread J.Pietschmann
Henri Yandell wrote: Just to bring this subject up again. Can you provide a short proposal what you need? A Complex class with the usual operations and functions (norm(), arg(), exp(), log(), sin() etc...), similar to j.m.Integer? J.Pietschmann --