[MATH-164] handling complex multiplication special cases

[lu...@free.fr]

The https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-164 issue presents a
multiplication case which is neither consistent with double multiplication nor
compliant to C99. Considering the division case which already handles lots of
special cases, I think we should really be C99-compliant for this method.

Do we change the behavior of the method and become C99-compliant (thus resolving
the issue) or do we change the javadoc only and explain what is done in this
case (thus choosing wontfix for the issue) ?

Luc


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

Re: [MATH-164] handling complex multiplication special cases

[Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>]

On 1/8/08, luc.maisonobe@free.fr <lu...@free.fr> wrote:
> The https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-164 issue presents a
> multiplication case which is neither consistent with double multiplication nor
> compliant to C99. Considering the division case which already handles lots of
> special cases, I think we should really be C99-compliant for this method.
>
> Do we change the behavior of the method and become C99-compliant (thus resolving
> the issue) or do we change the javadoc only and explain what is done in this
> case (thus choosing wontfix for the issue) ?
>

If you can find a way to achieve C99-compliance without killing
performance and maintaining clear documentation, that would be
optimal.  IIRC, however, there are two problems with this.  First,
unless things have changed, unfortunately the spec is not public, so
we can't provide a public reference to it, so we have to basically
embed full documentation of all of the corner cases in the javadoc.
Second,  when I looked at this before, I could not see a performant
way to fully implement the spec in Java.  Of course, that could just
be stupidity on my part ;)

I would be fine with anything in between what we have now and full
C99x compliance for 1.2, as long as we maintain complete and clear
documentation.  Presenting the computational formulas used and
referring to JDK documentation is preferable, in my opinion, to
referring to a non-public C spec.

Phil




> Luc
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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