Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SI-9813 Add Java 1.6. and 1.8 java.lang.Math methods into scala.math #5271

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

golem131
Copy link

@golem131 golem131 commented Jul 8, 2016

Add Java 1.6. and 1.8 java.lang.Math methods into scala.math.package

@golem131
Copy link
Author

golem131 commented Jul 8, 2016

Do we need some tests?

@janekdb
Copy link
Member

janekdb commented Jul 8, 2016

This was merged recently: #5225

Kindly rebase and decide if you want maintain the Scaladoc groupings. If not I'll be happy to extend the groupings following the merge. Would be best to maintain the groupings as we go.

Pavel Petlinsky added 2 commits July 8, 2016 17:48
# Conflicts:
#	src/library/scala/math/package.scala
 * move getExponent to @ExpLog group in scala.math package
 * restructure to groups new functions in scala.math package
@golem131
Copy link
Author

golem131 commented Jul 8, 2016

I have updated my pull request.
Are this ok?

@soc
Copy link
Member

soc commented Jul 8, 2016

I'm a bit concerned about the copying of the ScalaDoc from OpenJDK. Can someone comment on whether this is acceptable?

@mpociecha
Copy link
Member

Please squash commits.

@Ichoran
Copy link
Contributor

Ichoran commented Jul 8, 2016

I agree with @soc that copying the docs verbatim could be problematic. Also, some of them would be a lot clearer rewritten (e.g. "scalb" where the exponentiation didn't come through).

@golem131
Copy link
Author

golem131 commented Jul 9, 2016

@soc so, just remove them at all, or rewrite them or what?

@adriaanm
Copy link
Contributor

I'm going to have to close this PR without looking at it, due to the risk entailed by copy/pasting docs from a codebase that's governed by a license that's not compatible with ours.

🚨 The prospect of violating another project's license is terrifying to an open source project! Please, never derive docs or code and submit it for inclusion under our license unless the original license allows that. When you sign the CLA, that's one of the things you promise to do. 🚨

@adriaanm adriaanm closed this Jul 11, 2016
@janekdb
Copy link
Member

janekdb commented Jul 11, 2016

@golem131 - I suggest you create a new PR which contains only the forwarding to the Java methods and suitable Scaladoc groupings, similar to the exact group. Leave the methods without descriptions on the basis that the person looking at the methoda will be know what they are looking at because they a familiar with numerical computing or they are able to infer they should read the JavaDocs.

When I was looking at some existing undocumented methods earlier I realised it would be impossible for a non-expert to document the methods with original text so decided documentation omission was less damaging that partial documentation.

@golem131
Copy link
Author

@janekdb please check #5271

@SethTisue
Copy link
Member

the replacement PR is #5314

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
7 participants