[crypto] Help Releasing new Commons Crypto

Commons Crypto Team, It's been four years since the last release of commons crypto. There have been many updates to the repository since then, notably the integration of OpenSSL 1.1.1, and native arm64 support. Geoff Blake (copied) and I have been advocating for a new release, and we need assist

Re: [numbers] Fraction

Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 23:20, Alex Herbert a écrit : > > > > > On 9 Apr 2020, at 21:36, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > > > Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 22:20, Alex Herbert a > > écrit : > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 9 Apr 2020, at 16:32, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > Given this I am thinking t

Re: [numbers] Fraction

> On 9 Apr 2020, at 21:36, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 22:20, Alex Herbert a écrit : >> >> >> >>> On 9 Apr 2020, at 16:32, Gilles Sadowski wrote: >>> >>> >>> Given this I am thinking that using ZERO when possible is a better option and avoid 0 / -1. >>> >

Re: [numbers] Fraction

Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 22:20, Alex Herbert a écrit : > > > > > On 9 Apr 2020, at 16:32, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > > > > > > >> Given this I am thinking that using ZERO when possible is a better > >> option and avoid 0 / -1. > > > > Hmm, then I'm both +0 and -0 (which is the same, right?) > > on t

Re: [numbers] Fraction

> On 9 Apr 2020, at 16:32, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > > >> Given this I am thinking that using ZERO when possible is a better >> option and avoid 0 / -1. > > Hmm, then I'm both +0 and -0 (which is the same, right?) > on this issue. ;-) Ironically the conversion to a double is a minor bug:

Re: [numbers] Fraction

> On 9 Apr 2020, at 16:32, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 16:48, Alex Herbert > a écrit : >> >> >> On 09/04/2020 14:38, Gilles Sadowski wrote: >>> Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 14:09, Alex Herbert a >>> écrit : On 09/04/2020 12:04, Alex

Re: [numbers] Fraction

Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 16:48, Alex Herbert a écrit : > > > On 09/04/2020 14:38, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 14:09, Alex Herbert a > > écrit : > >> > >> On 09/04/2020 12:04, Alex Herbert wrote: > > So if we are to support 0/-1 then I will add this to the standard test > >>

Re: [numbers] Fraction

On 09/04/2020 14:38, Gilles Sadowski wrote: Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 14:09, Alex Herbert a écrit : On 09/04/2020 12:04, Alex Herbert wrote: So if we are to support 0/-1 then I will add this to the standard test cases to make sure it is correctly implemented. So I did this. No major functional

Re: [numbers] Fraction

Le jeu. 9 avr. 2020 à 14:09, Alex Herbert a écrit : > > > On 09/04/2020 12:04, Alex Herbert wrote: > > > >>> > >>> So if we are to support 0/-1 then I will add this to the standard test > >>> cases to make sure it is correctly implemented. > > So I did this. No major functionality failures. > > Ho

Re: [numbers] Fraction

On 09/04/2020 12:04, Alex Herbert wrote: So if we are to support 0/-1 then I will add this to the standard test cases to make sure it is correctly implemented. So I did this. No major functionality failures. However there is a discrepancy between multiply and other functions. Multiply wi

Re: [Math][Geometry] Ditch reliquate of "geometry" package in CM?

+1 for removing. -Matt From: Gilles Sadowski Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 4:52 AM To: dev@commons.apache.org Subject: [Math][Geometry] Ditch reliquate of "geometry" package in CM? Hello. This is a possible outcome of the discussion in another thread.[1] Almos

Re: [Geometry][Math] Equivalent of CM's "RotationConvention"

I agree. Let's remove it. -Matt From: Gilles Sadowski Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 5:30 AM To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [Geometry][Math] Equivalent of CM's "RotationConvention" Hi. 2020-04-09 3:30 UTC+02:00, Matt Juntunen : > It should just be a mat

Re: [numbers] Fraction

Fowarded to ML due to a reply-to error. On 09/04/2020 11:52, Gilles Sadowski wrote: 2020-04-09 12:33 UTC+02:00, Alex Herbert : On 09/04/2020 10:54, Gilles Sadowski wrote: Hi. 2020-04-09 11:28 UTC+02:00, Alex Herbert : Two oddities in fraction: 1. Zero can be represented as 0 / 1 or 0 / -1

Re: [numbers] Fraction

2020-04-09 12:33 UTC+02:00, Alex Herbert : > > On 09/04/2020 10:54, Gilles Sadowski wrote: >> Hi. >> >> 2020-04-09 11:28 UTC+02:00, Alex Herbert : >>> Two oddities in fraction: >>> >>> 1. Zero can be represented as 0 / 1 or 0 / -1 >>> >>> I have not found any location where this manifest as a bug.

Re: [numbers] Fraction

On 09/04/2020 10:54, Gilles Sadowski wrote: Hi. 2020-04-09 11:28 UTC+02:00, Alex Herbert : Two oddities in fraction: 1. Zero can be represented as 0 / 1 or 0 / -1 I have not found any location where this manifest as a bug. :-) It is handled by the arithmetic and toString methods and the

Re: [numbers] Fraction

Hi. 2020-04-09 11:28 UTC+02:00, Alex Herbert : > Two oddities in fraction: > > 1. Zero can be represented as 0 / 1 or 0 / -1 > > I have not found any location where this manifest as a bug. :-) > It is > handled by the arithmetic and toString methods and the denominator is > not negated in the me

Re: [Geometry][Math] Equivalent of CM's "RotationConvention"

Hi. 2020-04-09 3:30 UTC+02:00, Matt Juntunen : > It should just be a matter of removing all RotationConvention arguments and > replacing any branches on the rotation convention with the path that uses > the non-negated angle. Then, documenting the convention followed by the > class. Rereading the

[numbers] Fraction

Two oddities in fraction: 1. Zero can be represented as 0 / 1 or 0 / -1 I have not found any location where this manifest as a bug. It is handled by the arithmetic and toString methods and the denominator is not negated in the method negate() and so negation of 0 / -1 returns the same value:

[Math][Geometry] Ditch reliquate of "geometry" package in CM?

Hello. This is a possible outcome of the discussion in another thread.[1] Almost all codes that were formerly (in CM v3.6.1) located in org.apache.commons.math3.geometry have been ported to "Commons Geometry". The remaining 6 classes are in package[2] org.apache.commons.math4.geometry.euc