Before all, thanks for your constructive replies. On 21/10/16 21:34, Ben Finney wrote: > Octavio Alvarez <octal...@alvarezp.org> writes: > >> On 10/21/2016 04:56 AM, Ben Finney wrote: >>> I would suggest: >>> >>> :param int max_no_dec: number of rounds we allow [FIXME] to be stuck. >>> >>> where “[FIXME]” must be replaced with something explicit. Is it “the >>> program”? “the network connection”? Some other party? It's not >>> specified, and I think Lintian is correct to complain. >> >> What about: >> >> :param int max_no_dec: number of rounds we allow being stuck > > Still far too ambiguous. Why not just *explicitly* state what party is > granted the allowance? > > *Some* party is allowed to be stuck, but the current phrasing doesn't > say what; the description should be clear and say what that party is.
We are dealing here with a well known algorithm in the involved field. So the `party' is implicitly the algorithm. I have to confess that I am not familiar with this very algorithm. But the context let me think that it is a convergent algorithm and that the involved parameter is meant to control (numerical) convergence that goes out of control, what is a usual safeguard technique so to speak. > -- Jerome BENOIT | calculus+at-rezozer^dot*net https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=calcu...@rezozer.net AE28 AE15 710D FF1D 87E5 A762 3F92 19A6 7F36 C68B