Bug fix basic.egcd, basic.min and basic.max

[LarryBattle]

I'm resubmitting this pull request from a new branch. Git flow style.

Recap of changes.

• Added more test cases for basic.egcd(), basic.max() and basic.min()
• Returns +Infinity and -Infinity if empty object is passed to basic.min() and basic.max()
• Fixed bug with basic.egcd() relating to #90
• Bug fix for #87 Used for loop instead of Math.max.apply() and Math.min.apply() to avoid `max call stack size exception.
• Add *.*~ files to .gitignore

Previous pull request https://github.com/sjkaliski/numbers.js/pull/94

[LarryBattle]

Strange..... One of the random test fails randomly causing this merge to fail the merge test. :-(

✖ 1 of 127 tests failed:

1) numbers random.distribution.irwinHall should return a normal distribution of length n within bounds of (m/2 - sub, m/2):
AssertionError: Math.abs(50.58866083062021 - 50) < 0.5
at Object.testing.approxEquals (/home/dev/p/github/numbers.js/test/testing.js:14:10)
at Context.<anonymous> (/home/dev/p/github/numbers.js/test/random.test.js:156:13)
at Test.Runnable.run (/home/dev/p/github/numbers.js/node_modules/mocha/lib/runnable.js:196:15)
at Runner.runTest (/home/dev/p/github/numbers.js/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:344:10)
at /home/dev/p/github/numbers.js/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:390:12
at next (/home/dev/p/github/numbers.js/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:270:14)
at /home/dev/p/github/numbers.js/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:279:7
at next (/home/dev/p/github/numbers.js/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:227:23)
at Object._onImmediate (/home/dev/p/github/numbers.js/node_modules/mocha/lib/runner.js:247:5)
at processImmediate [as _immediateCallback] (timers.js:330:15)

It stems from here: https://github.com/sjkaliski/numbers.js/pull/76#discussion_r2498407

[LarryBattle]

Related pull request. https://github.com/sjkaliski/numbers.js/pull/96

[Dakkers]

@larrybattle if you rerun "npm test" then it should work. I've had that particular thing fail for me too, it's a bit random. No worries about it.

[LarryBattle]

How do I rerun the Travis CI script?

[Dakkers]

Oh, sorry, I thought it was a local thing. I'm pretty sure I can merge it regardless of Travis CI failing.

[Dakkers]

I can but it looks "bad" on the repo's readme. what you can do is commit again and it'll most likely work out. this is a bit of a funny situation in my mind. you can change the readme to include the proper website for the documentation - I was planning on doing it myself on my next commit but it's all the same.

under the "How to Use" section, the very last line is

"For further documentation, check out our JSDoc"

but we don't use JSDoc anymore. our documentation is actually hosted on www.numbersjs.info. if you could change that, that would be an easy commit.

sorry about how silly this is! I'll try to fix up that test some point soon.

[LarryBattle]

Ok. It works now.