Hi, can we please go back to the initial question of whether it is worth the effort to use a more robust way of real comparison in qquickitem ?
Dominik P.S.: I'm aware of it that how we compare the reals is also important, but that's not the aim of that mail On 11/30/2012 01:36 PM, Samuel Rødal wrote: > On 11/30/2012 09:51 AM, Jedrzej Nowacki wrote: >> On Friday 30. November 2012 09.23.32 Samuel Rødal wrote: >>> Yep, having something similar to AlmostEqualUlpsAndAbs() would be great. >>> I've had some ideas of making qFuzzyCompare work that way in the past, >>> but gave them up due to not wanting to risk subtly breaking a lot of >>> existing code. Introducing a new function, with default but customizable >>> arguments for the max differences, sounds like the way to go. >>> >>> The following tasks might be relevant: >>> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-26453 >>> https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-16819 >> Hi, >> >> Is qFuzzyCompare compatible with ECMAScript standard for float >> comparision? >> It would not be good if sometimes two, const floats are equals and somtimes >> not. > ECMAScript float comparison doesn't seem to be fuzzy, at least from what > I can tell here: http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/5.1/#sec-11.9.3 > > -- > Samuel > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development