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

add sincospi #35816

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 23, 2020
Merged

add sincospi #35816

merged 2 commits into from
Jun 23, 2020

Conversation

simeonschaub
Copy link
Member

close #35799
ref #35792

Comment on lines +476 to +477
@test sinpi(complex(x, x)) ≈ Complex{Float64}(sinpi(complex(big(x), big(x))))
@test cospi(complex(x, x)) ≈ Complex{Float64}(cospi(complex(big(x), big(x))))
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These should really be tested a bit more

@StefanKarpinski
Copy link
Sponsor Member

This is great! I'm not qualified to review though. @simonbyrne, would you be willing?

@simonbyrne
Copy link
Contributor

Can we factor out the range reduction so that sinpi/cospi/sincospi all use the same underlying function?

@simeonschaub
Copy link
Member Author

I thought about this as well, but sinpi reduces to [-1,1], whereas cospi does [0,1], so they work a bit differently. One could perhaps use the same reduction for sinpi and sincospi, but I think factoring that out might add more complexity than is actually saved. Or do you think the deduplication is worth that complexity?

@simeonschaub
Copy link
Member Author

simeonschaub commented May 25, 2020

@simonbyrne What kind of refactoring did you have in mind?

@simeonschaub
Copy link
Member Author

Bump. What should be done here?

@simonbyrne simonbyrne closed this Jun 16, 2020
@simonbyrne simonbyrne reopened this Jun 16, 2020
@simeonschaub
Copy link
Member Author

Does this mean this is good to go as-is?

@simonbyrne
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, just wanted to figure out why the tests were failing.

@simonbyrne simonbyrne merged commit 6cd329c into JuliaLang:master Jun 23, 2020
mbauman added a commit to dlfivefifty/julia that referenced this pull request Jun 26, 2020
* origin/master: (232 commits)
  Add passthrough for non-Markdown docs (JuliaLang#36091)
  Fix pointer to no longer assume contiguity (JuliaLang#36405)
  Ensure string-hashing is defined before it gets used (JuliaLang#36411)
  Make compilecache atomic (JuliaLang#36416)
  add a test for JuliaLang#30739 (JuliaLang#36395)
  Fix broken links in docstring of `repeat` (JuliaLang#36376)
  fix and de-dup cached calls to `methods_by_ftype` in compiler (JuliaLang#36404)
  ml-matches: skip unnecessary work, when possible (JuliaLang#36413)
  gf: fix some issues with the move from using a tree to a hash lookup of leaf types (JuliaLang#36413)
  Add news and manual entry for sincospi (JuliaLang#36403)
  Check axes in Array(::AbstractArray) (fixes JuliaLang#36220) (JuliaLang#36397)
  add versions of `code_typed` and `which` that accept tuple types (JuliaLang#36389)
  Fix spelling of readdir. (JuliaLang#36409)
  add sincospi (JuliaLang#35816)
  fix showing methods with unicode gensymed variable names (JuliaLang#36396)
  Add doctest: eachslice (JuliaLang#36386)
  fix documentation typo ("Ingeger")
  Refactor `abstract_eval` to separate out statements and values (JuliaLang#36350)
  fix return type of `get!` on `IdDict` (JuliaLang#36383)
  Allow single option with REPL.TerminalMenus (JuliaLang#36369)
  ...
simeonschaub added a commit to simeonschaub/julia that referenced this pull request Aug 11, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

add sincospi
3 participants