commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark R. Diggory" <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-commons-sandbox/math/xdocs developers.xml
Date Thu, 22 May 2003 18:57:32 GMT
Phil Steitz wrote:

>At this point, I don't think that it is best to designate a
>fixed set of references for mathematical defintions.  I
>don't think that either of the references below are a)
>comprehensive or b) fully specified (i.e. correct) for all
>of the things that they define. What I propose is that
>each submission should include full references and each
>definition should be open to discussion/debate on a case
>basis. Submitters should be allowed to choose their own
>definition sources and in some cases even write their own
>defintions.  I am OK with maintaining a list of all of the
>sources that have been used, and more importantly a master
>list of defintions; but I think that we will run into
>problems if we try to say that *all* definitions come from
>a single list of references -- if only because the
>references may overlap and/or be inconsistent.
Agreed, this is a work in progress, quite subject to reorganization and 

>One more nit: I would reference the pdf versions of the
>docs below instead of the .ps files.
+1, I just happened to have ghostview, the thought didn't occur to me.

>Strong +(whatever my opionion is worth) on following the
>IEEE standard regarding NaNs (and other things). The
>standard itself should be referenced somewhere and we
>should pull out some explicit guidelines.  I will work on

I think we can get to the canonical root source content of these 
documents at the IEEE group.

But, it looks tlike the actual standard costs between $40 and $50. Kinda 
difficult to reference directly.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message