On Oct 7, 2011, at 7:43 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
>>
>> Not worth a long argument, but the reciprocal of a fraction is not exactly
>> the same concept as multiplicative inverse in a field. I would be happier
>> about living with that inconsistency than adding another noun/verb
>> inco
>
> Not worth a long argument, but the reciprocal of a fraction is not exactly
> the same concept as multiplicative inverse in a field. I would be happier
> about living with that inconsistency than adding another noun/verb
> inconsistency in the same class.
>
> Phil
>
Just for my own interest:
On Oct 7, 2011, at 6:07 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
>>
>> +1 to add both of these, though I would suggest one of the following
>> pairs of names:
>> 0) negate, invert
>> 1) opposite, reciprocal
>> 2) additiveInverse, multiplicativeInverse
>>
>> Probably 2) is clearest, but a bit long. I a
>
> +1 to add both of these, though I would suggest one of the following
> pairs of names:
> 0) negate, invert
> 1) opposite, reciprocal
> 2) additiveInverse, multiplicativeInverse
>
> Probably 2) is clearest, but a bit long. I am fine with any of them.
>
> Phil
>
Hi,
I've created MATH-686 which r
>
> +1 to add both of these, though I would suggest one of the following
> pairs of names:
> 0) negate, invert
> 1) opposite, reciprocal
> 2) additiveInverse, multiplicativeInverse
>
> Probably 2) is clearest, but a bit long. I am fine with any of them.
>
> Phil
>
I do think these two features mig
On 10/3/11 8:22 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Good morning everyone,
> I would like to add the above mentioned methods to FieldElement. This
> would avoid awkward commands such as
> x.getField().getZero().substract(x) (for x.opposite())
> and
> x.getField().getOne().divide(x) (for x.invert()).
> I
2011/10/4 Luc Maisonobe :
> Le 04/10/2011 05:22, Sébastien Brisard a écrit :
>>
>> Good morning everyone,
>> I would like to add the above mentioned methods to FieldElement. This
>> would avoid awkward commands such as
>> x.getField().getZero().substract(x) (for x.opposite())
>> and
>> x.getField()
Le 04/10/2011 05:22, Sébastien Brisard a écrit :
Good morning everyone,
I would like to add the above mentioned methods to FieldElement. This
would avoid awkward commands such as
x.getField().getZero().substract(x) (for x.opposite())
and
x.getField().getOne().divide(x) (for x.invert()).
It's not
Good morning everyone,
I would like to add the above mentioned methods to FieldElement. This
would avoid awkward commands such as
x.getField().getZero().substract(x) (for x.opposite())
and
x.getField().getOne().divide(x) (for x.invert()).
It's not essential, but I think it would be useful. Besides,
