Done in rev r1178306.
Best regards,
Sébastien
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
2011/10/2 Phil Steitz :
> On 10/2/11 7:38 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>>> took me some time to figure out what your [1] meant, but I think I got
>>> it (or did I?)... I'm a bit on the slow side.
>> The first time I saw this quote, it also took me a lot of time to understand
>> what they
On 10/2/11 7:38 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hello.
>
>> took me some time to figure out what your [1] meant, but I think I got
>> it (or did I?)... I'm a bit on the slow side.
> The first time I saw this quote, it also took me a lot of time to understand
> what they were talking about. Indeed, the
Hello.
> took me some time to figure out what your [1] meant, but I think I got
> it (or did I?)... I'm a bit on the slow side.
The first time I saw this quote, it also took me a lot of time to understand
what they were talking about. Indeed, the mere fact of having a hard time
understanding it i
2011/10/2 Gilles Sadowski :
> Hi Sébastien.[1]
>
Hi Gilles,
took me some time to figure out what your [1] meant, but I think I got
it (or did I?)... I'm a bit on the slow side.
>
> +1 also because it is the standard style in Java (for better or worse).
>
> As I've pointed out somewhere else[2], to
Hi Sébastien.[1]
On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 01:34:50PM +0200, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Right. I tend to like self-describing names also good. In french
> (you've rightly spotted a non-native speaker...), an "operator" is not
> necessarily linear, and I think same goes to english terminology
> (coul
Right. I tend to like self-describing names also good. In french
(you've rightly spotted a non-native speaker...), an "operator" is not
necessarily linear, and I think same goes to english terminology
(could you confirm please). So a linear operator is not exactly
identical to an operator.
However,
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> > As for shortening the name, I'm all for it. For consistency, I would
> > do it for every class matching the pattern *LinearOperator* if you all
> > agree. Also, I think that "linear" is as important as "operator" in
> > "LinearOperator" (eve
OK Phil,
I'm just worried about naming consistency. So should I drop "Linear"
everywhere? Only in exception names (where I agree, it's not that
important)?
Thanks,
Sébastien
2011/10/2 Phil Steitz :
> On 10/1/11 9:42 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
>> My mistake! I was convinced we already had
>> -
On 10/1/11 9:42 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> My mistake! I was convinced we already had
> - NonPositiveDefiniteMatrixException extends
> NonPositiveDefiniteLinearOperatorException
> - NonSymmetricMatrixException extends NonSelfAdjointLinearOperatorException
> - NonSquareMatrixException exte
My mistake! I was convinced we already had
- NonPositiveDefiniteMatrixException extends
NonPositiveDefiniteLinearOperatorException
- NonSymmetricMatrixException extends NonSelfAdjointLinearOperatorException
- NonSquareMatrixException extends NonSquareLinearOperatorException
but looking at the
On 10/1/11 1:21 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
> Hello,
> I need to be able to throw an exception when an iterative linear
> solver detects that a RealLinearOperator is singular. I would propose
> to implement a SingularLinearOperatorException. Then, since RealMatrix
> is derived from RealLinearOpera
Hello,
I need to be able to throw an exception when an iterative linear
solver detects that a RealLinearOperator is singular. I would propose
to implement a SingularLinearOperatorException. Then, since RealMatrix
is derived from RealLinearOperator, it would be logical to have
SingularMatrixExceptio
13 matches
Mail list logo
