"Don" <[email protected]> ÐÏ×?ÄÏÍÉ×/ÐÏ×?ÄÏÍÉÌÁ × ÎÏ×ÉÎÁÈ:[email protected]... > Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote: > in all the tricky special cases. Unlike a naive relative equality test > involving divisions, it doesn't fail for values near zero. (I _think_ > that's the reason why people think you need an absolute equality test as > well). > And it's fast. No divisions, no poorly predictable branches.
Just wonder. I always used relative equality in form: fabs(a-b) > eps * fabs(a) is therew something wrong in that, except maybe zero a?
