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

move special functions out of Base? #8536

Closed
nolta opened this issue Sep 30, 2014 · 7 comments
Closed

move special functions out of Base? #8536

nolta opened this issue Sep 30, 2014 · 7 comments
Labels
excision Removal of code from Base or the repository good first issue Indicates a good issue for first-time contributors to Julia needs decision A decision on this change is needed

Comments

@nolta
Copy link
Member

nolta commented Sep 30, 2014

Continuing the discussion in #8294, now that the amos code has been converted to julia, do we want to start moving the special functions (e.g., airy*, bessel*, hankel*) out of Base and into a package?

@JeffBezanson
Copy link
Member

This issue can fight it out with #4301 :)

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Member

Cc: @lindahua

@tkelman
Copy link
Contributor

tkelman commented Nov 24, 2014

This didn't get much attention, but I'm in favor of it primarily because it gets rid of a Fortran dependency with a pretty minor performance cost. Does anyone use these special functions frequently enough that moving them into a package would be a major hassle for them? If so then no rush, we can wait until package precompilation is working well I suppose.

In order for this to happen, SpecialFunctions.jl would have to be fleshed out the rest of the way by copying over the docs (tests look like they're copied already?) from the relevant parts of base / openspecfun, registered and tested (on travis and package evaluator).

@simonbyrne
Copy link
Contributor

I'd be okay with this as well.

@nolta
Copy link
Member Author

nolta commented Nov 24, 2014

I guess we need to resolve the "big Base vs small Base" argument first, e.g., #75.

@tkelman
Copy link
Contributor

tkelman commented Nov 24, 2014

And #5155, #1906 and a few others. I feel like the more-or-less consensus for the right thing to do is small[er than now] base with a good mechanism for making bundled installs including most of the commonly-used packages by default, preferably precompiled for fast load times.

We haven't implemented either bundled-with-packages installs or precompiled packages yet. But at least for something small and maybe not-so-widely-used like this it could be good to do a dry run of what the process of migrating things out of base looks like, regardless of whether the nice-to-have features are ready yet. We've seen several cases of packages moving into base, especially when replacing troublesome binary dependencies. Not so many cases of the other way around recently, since the original creation of the package manager right?

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Member

@nolta I took your work and updated it for 0.6 (not the translator, but the resulting files).

JuliaMath/SpecialFunctions.jl#52

@StefanKarpinski StefanKarpinski added the excision Removal of code from Base or the repository label Sep 21, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
excision Removal of code from Base or the repository good first issue Indicates a good issue for first-time contributors to Julia needs decision A decision on this change is needed
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants