commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Sicker <>
Subject Re: [math] Proposed resolution for MATH-1284
Date Sun, 07 May 2017 21:22:59 GMT
I find using "tuples" here confusing since a tuple can have multiple types,
while a vector or point are all the same type (given the space it's in, so
reals -> doubles for example).

On 7 May 2017 at 07:26, Raymond DeCampo <> wrote:

> I have prepared a resolution for issue MATH-1284 (
> in the feature-MATH-1284
> branch.
> I'd appreciate a review by any interested parties.  I am particularly
> concerned to know if the changes represent to much of an API change, even
> given the target is 4.0.  Boring details about the reasoning behind the
> approach follow.
> I originally started out intending to keep the Vector?D classes pretty much
> as-is, dropping the implementation of the Point interface and introducing
> concrete Point?D classes.  In the process of implementing this I learned
> that the existing code switches between using Vector?D as a Vector and a
> Point fairly frequently.  I started by adding conversion methods but I felt
> this introduced potential inefficiencies.
> So I decided to try a different approach.  Leveraging the fact that a point
> and a vector in finite dimensional Euclidean space can both be represented
> by n-tuples, I created a class for the n-tuples, Cartesian?D (h/t Gilles
> for the name) which can represent a vector or a point.
> This approach was much more easily propagated to the remainder of the code
> and in many places allowed the removal of casts.  I also kept the Vector?D
> classes as an intermediary abstract class in the hope of reducing the
> burden on a user upgrading from 3.x.
> Thanks,
> Ray

Matt Sicker <>

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message