commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Endo, Roger" <re...@amgen.com>
Subject RE: [math] Complex implementation
Date Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:37:21 GMT
Hi

It has not been mentioned in this thread, but Mark Hale's complex
implementation is still being maintained over at sourceforge:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jsci

I might also have some complex number code/knowledge/experience but
unfortunately not much time.

Roger Endo


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Steitz [mailto:phil@steitz.com]
> 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 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 already written 
> it (which I 
> > had missed in the thread).
> > 
> > Phil,
> > 
> > Are you willing to donate your Complex number 
> implementation to the Math 
> > library?
> 
> Not in its current state.  The outline described here: 
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listId=15&msgNo=28132
> is what I was working on.  This represents a refactoring and 
> significant 
> extension of some old code of mine.  Most importantly, my classes are 
> neither C9x compliant nor numerically sound (the reason that 
> I did not 
> include them in the initial submission) and they don't implement the 
> transcendental functions. Given that the outline is for a fairly 
> unsophisticated implementation using static utility classes 
> for complex 
> operations, I doubt that the structure itself would have much 
> value to 
> commons-math today.  Therefore, it is probably best to start from 
> scratch (or from VNI, it they are willing), designing something that 
> both fits the current direction and provides decent numerics.
> 
> Phil
> 
> > 
> > -Mark
> > 
> > Henri Yandell wrote:
> > 
> >> As an answer to the thread mentioned, it suggests that two 
> >> implementations
> >> of the Complex number functionality are available:
> >>
> >> 1) VNI's.
> >> 2) Colt's.
> >>
> >> This is no longer true, and the reason for me starting 
> this thread. 
> >> VNI no
> >> longer have their implementation online and the url 
> provided in the email
> >> thread no longer takes you to the javadoc.
> >>
> >> This is made worse by the fact that Colt's implementation 
> is in fact
> >> nothing but the VNI implementation. There is 1 
> implementation from 2
> >> sources, the original of which just shut up shop.
> >>
> >> I agree with Roger Endo on Complex number usage. We're 
> using it in FFT's
> >> amongst other places.
> >>
> >> So I'm left with Colt. This has legal problems. While 
> VNI's licence is
> >> unspecified, Colt includes GPL licenced works. So this 
> rules it out for
> >> some uses. In fact, as people here at work are starting to suggest 
> >> applets
> >> rather than flash interfaces, I could be facing a 
> situation in which I
> >> cannot download a fresh Complex number implementation 
> which I can legally
> >> use.
> >>
> >> I see no reason not to go with Phil's classes, unless it's 
> to ask VNI if
> >> they'd like to submit their popular Complex class.
> >>
> >> Hen
> >>
> >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Mark R. Diggory wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> I'm going to start a list of references to these threads 
> in the xdoc, so
> >>> we can always get back to it from the home page. When people have
> >>> questions about the decisions and issues about complex, 
> we'll be able to
> >>>  point them at the history of discussion on the topic.
> >>>
> >>> -Mark
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Brent Worden wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Here's the previous complex thread is was referring to
> >>>> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listId=15&msgNo=28132
> >>>>
> >>>> Brent Worden
> >>>> http://www.brent.worden.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Brent Worden [mailto:brent@worden.org]
> >>>>> 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 archives, it appears we 
> decided against a 
> >>>>> complex
> >>>>> class mainly for two reasons:
> >>>>> 1) Not too many RW applications warrant a complex class 
> and can be
> >>>>> accommodated with two double values.
> >>>>> 2) There are plenty of other OS, complex 
> implementations available 
> >>>>> so it
> >>>>> wasn't crucial to having one in commons-math.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Brent Worden
> >>>>> http://www.brent.worden.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message