Curtis L. Olson wrote:
If you could run the clock forward a year or two or five or 10 and
verify that the new code matches the results of the existing code within
acceptable tolerences, then I think I'd be ok with sneaking it into v0.9.9
Both 1970 and 2025 seem to work properly.
Erik
__
Erik Hofman wrote:
Yes, that's the code.
I now have a fully working version without any of the affected code,
just a routine which was written by Curtis anyhow.
How should we proceed at this point; add it prior to 0.9.9, or add it
for 1.0 and provide a patch for 0.9.9?
Erik,
If you could
Steve Hosgood wrote:
I shall go hang my head in shame somewhere quiet
There's no reason for that, I didn't manage to get around it at first
either. I think I have a lucky day today to discover how simple it could
be done.
Let me emphasize that I really appreciate it that you took the
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 13:07, Erik Hofman wrote:
> Ladislav Michnovic( wrote:
> > 2005/11/11, Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> There's one thing I really like to see solved preferably before 0.9.9
> >> (but it is a must for 1.0) and that's the sun/moon azimuth calculation
> >> code to be replac
Ladislav Michnovic( wrote:
2005/11/11, Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
There's one thing I really like to see solved preferably before 0.9.9
(but it is a must for 1.0) and that's the sun/moon azimuth calculation
code to be replaced.
If you are talking about code from xglobe ( src/Time/sunpos
2005/11/11, Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> There's one thing I really like to see solved preferably before 0.9.9
> (but it is a must for 1.0) and that's the sun/moon azimuth calculation
> code to be replaced.
If you are talking about code from xglobe ( src/Time/sunpos.cxx,
moonpos.cxx) , wh
