Am 28.10.2011 23:30, schrieb Gilles Sadowski:
> I think that something is not quite right in those class names:
...
> 2. assume that the "number" type is "Real", and drop it everywhere:
The "Real" was included (a lng time ago because implementations for
complex numbers were assumed to appear.
Le 29/10/2011 12:55, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 09:10:12AM +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 28/10/2011 23:30, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> I think that something is not quite right in those class names:
>>> UnivariateMatrixFunction
>>> UnivariateRealFun
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 09:10:12AM +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 28/10/2011 23:30, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> > Hello.
> >
> > I think that something is not quite right in those class names:
> > UnivariateMatrixFunction
> > UnivariateRealFunction
> > UnivariateVectorialFunction
> >
> >
Le 28/10/2011 23:30, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> Hello.
>
> I think that something is not quite right in those class names:
> UnivariateMatrixFunction
> UnivariateRealFunction
> UnivariateVectorialFunction
>
> To be consistent, we should either
> 1. indicate the "grouping" and "number" typ
Shouldn't Vectorial be Vector?
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Gilles Sadowski <
gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I think that something is not quite right in those class names:
> UnivariateMatrixFunction
> UnivariateRealFunction
> UnivariateVectorialFunction
>
> To be consis
Hello.
I think that something is not quite right in those class names:
UnivariateMatrixFunction
UnivariateRealFunction
UnivariateVectorialFunction
To be consistent, we should either
1. indicate the "grouping" and "number" type everywhere:
UnivariateRealMatrixFunction
Univaria
