Re: Adding a generic mathematical library

[Emanuel Berg]

Christopher Dimech wrote:

> To get what you want, you have to agree with something.
> Otherwise you get the resistance you have witnessed. I am in
> agreement with Eli on this thing. We should first discuss
> its scope and design.

It matters where things are put, as long as they are shipped
and can be found from anywhere maybe that can be handled then.

It matters what things are called, if they have some long
prefix from some package it is like a joke asking math people
to use it - I'm not one of them but I know how they think and
would feel like an idiot handing them such software - if this
can be solved as well, so no prefix and ISO/conventional names
for everything according to a chosen method, then only one
thing remains and that is ...

The scope of the "library", will it also have a bunch of Calc
specific helpers, settings and so on?

Because if it doesn't it is just located in the Calc dir.
Why ever anyone would place it there I don't know but also
don't really care.

So yes, examine what Calc doesn't have then.

Individual functions ... hard to care about them. After you do
one, someone else will pop up, and you can spend a decade on
that and not a single new file or anything visibly
has improved. So no thanks to that.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal