On 10/8/11 5:05 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hi Phil.
>
>> Can you live with r1180315?
> [I guess that you are talking to me.]
>
> I still stand with the arguments of my other post about this "1e-9" constant
> being confusing for the "non numerics-aware" users.
> However, I can understand that we may want to also document the departure
> from the math definition incurred by numerical considerations. So, I'd
> propose to add:
> "The direct assignment to 1 for values below 1e-9 is an efficiency
> optimization on the ground that the result of the full computation
> is indistinguishable from 1 due to the limited accuracy of the floating
> point representation."
We are also *defining* the value to be 1 at 0. I think the current
doc is pretty clear and I do want to keep the threshold in there,
since it does affect what is being returned and really amounts to
part of the definition. Adding extra prose above is OK with me, but
I think its clear enough as is.
Phil
>
> Is that OK with you?
>
>
> Regards,
> Gilles
>
> P.S. I also cannot live with the missing "@" in the {@code ...} tag
> construct. ;-)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
