On Mar 16, 9:15 pm, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > On 3/16/11 3:04 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > > > Overall, I believe the abs(actual-expected)<tiny_number approach is > > the only practical way to handle doctests. The expected numeric > > result is still available, just not on a line by itself. > > Crazy idea: What if we introduce a "# numeric 1e-10" doctest flag (like > #optional, etc.) that does just that---reads in the doctest answer, gets > the output of the function, and does an abs(actual-expected)< epsilon > (where epsilon can be specified in the flag, or it has a default). > > sage: some_numerical_function() # numeric 1e-6 > 3.43234454 > > passes if abs(real result-3.43234454)<1e-6
Nothin' crazy 'bout that. But it would be a lot of work to educate people about it, get consistency, replace previous doctests... well, not a LOT of work, but work. What do you think, is it worth it? It would definitely help a lot with always adjusting numerical accuracy things where the *exact* answer is not important (as opposed to, say, RealField(10000)). - kcrisman -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
