commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <>
Subject Re: [MATH] Matrix indices
Date Sat, 04 Sep 2004 23:41:45 GMT
Al Chou wrote:
> --- Phil Steitz <> wrote:
>>Brent Worden wrote:
>>>I tally (pre-apologies if I misrepresent anyone):
>>>Four votes for 0-based indexing (Andrew, Kim, Mark, and Stephen).
>>>Three votes for 1-based indexing (Al, Phil, and myself).
>>>Should we go ahead with the 0-based change and put this to rest? Or do we
>>>still need some debate?
>>>I, for one, want to move on.
>>+1 for moving on :-)
>>Interesting that "astonishment is in the eye of the beholder."
>>Mathematicians may be astonished by the 0-based indexing; but as long as 
>>it is clearly documented, most will not care.  I am assuming from the 
>>above that you, Brent, are OK with the change.  That leaves only me and Al 
>>as holdouts.  I can live with it, and Al seems ambivalent, so I will go 
>>ahead and make the change. Assuming you are OK with this, Al?
> Yes, go ahead.  We'll let our users tell us whether we made the right decision
> here.
> Al
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Changes have been made and web site and RC have been updated. Some careful 
review would be good, since this did involve some code changes.

Also, it would be great if someone other than me could validate the sigs.

If you are running Linux with gpg installed, you just need to grab the 
KEYS file from CVS or the dist location 
<>, import it using
gpg --import KEYS
and then do
gpg --verify <filename>.asc <filename>
for each of signed files. It will complain that the key used to make the 
sigs is not signed, but the sigs should be reported as "good."



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

View raw message