commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mark R. Diggory" <mdigg...@latte.harvard.edu>
Subject Re: [math] Complex implementation
Date Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:42:30 GMT
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?

-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
>>>>
>>>>

-- 
Mark Diggory
Software Developer
Harvard MIT Data Center
http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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