Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of
 SRS0=Vpzx=DN=m4x.org=sebastien.brisard@bounces.m4x.org designates
 129.104.30.34 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20120509104011.GG32074@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
References: 
 <CAGRH7Hqob=sCsGSC36Ez0-bOApmtiiUzAJwX4QB-Jj-L5bOTPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FA97A2F.8070104@gmail.com>
	<20120508210925.GJ10938@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
	<CAGRH7Hq2mDDGyb-+4v5hm2C+CF_rL82qfBuYTyCttRh7-+5gjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGRH7Ho9kOibVC3XRHdmozW9-_GasnzacGe7_9T+KSEW0MCGGA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJSjvwsLCg5fCbEvmHd9-gSMTj5tkZd2jdFH_bgj0sS+wJcD5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGRH7Hr9RtZaivVgMQHnE=0+dg1i7hMdepCmeB0hXf+fdwD_8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120509104011.GG32074@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 13:03:17 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAGRH7HrrAuUgeMAZ5-Sg81YxFosKtiXtcdfTM3Th_1G+XATAog@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [math] Exposing the Lanczos approximation in
 o.a.c.m3.special.Gamma?
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9bastien_Brisard?= <sebastien.brisard@m4x.org>
To: Commons Developers List <dev@commons.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

2012/5/9 Gilles Sadowski <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>:
>> >> the patch for the proposed modification has been attached to the
>> >> MATH-753 ticket. Thanks for your comments!
>> >>
>> >
>> > What I have seen in the patch, you remove duplicated code by using the
>> > already existing lanczos function, and create an additional function for
>> > the constant.
>> >
>> In fact, I've realized that I have accidentally committed the
>> lanczos() function in r1334315, which has nothing to do with this
>> matter (that revision was about MATH-784). In fact, double
>> lanczos(double) is indeed new.
>> I will try to revert the change in Gamma in r1334315, and commit it in
>> a new revision, once we all agree that double lanczos(double) can be
>> exposed.
>>
>> So the question is: do you like this function lanczos (and its
>> Javadoc) or not. Do you agree with this method being public?
>
> "public" is preferrable to duplicate code (if that's the question...).
>
I guess it is the question... Code duplication vs. exposing a little
bit of the internals of Gamma.
I will commit the patch.

>
> Gilles
>
>> [...]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>


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