On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:41 AM, David Knezevic
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Peterson
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:16 AM, David Knezevic <
>> david.kneze...@akselos.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We use TypeVector::relative_fuzzy_equals in a number of places in the
>>> li
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:51 AM, John Peterson
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:41 AM, David Knezevic <
> david.kneze...@akselos.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Peterson
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:16 AM, David Knezevic <
>>> david.kneze...@a
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Peterson
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:16 AM, David Knezevic <
> david.kneze...@akselos.com> wrote:
>
>> We use TypeVector::relative_fuzzy_equals in a number of places in the
>> library. I'm not convinced that this function makes sense, since the
>>
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:16 AM, David Knezevic
wrote:
> We use TypeVector::relative_fuzzy_equals in a number of places in the
> library. I'm not convinced that this function makes sense, since the
> tolerance effectively depends on where the points happen to be located. I
> can't think of any si
We use TypeVector::relative_fuzzy_equals in a number of places in the
library. I'm not convinced that this function makes sense, since the
tolerance effectively depends on where the points happen to be located. I
can't think of any situation where this behavior is desirable.
My preferred approach
