Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> I'm guessing that can only have come from the mindset of C/C++
>> programmers, where this sort of thing is considered acceptable:
>
> Maybe. The journal reference in the second link I posted dates the
> practice back
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> I'm guessing that can only have come from the mindset of C/C++ programmers,
> where this sort of thing is considered acceptable:
Maybe. The journal reference in the second link I posted dates the
practice back to at least 1975, a time pred
Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>> I don't understand why they add the error tolerances together. I can
>> understand taking the minimum, or the maximum:
>
> The usual idea is that the tolerance is calculated as a relative
> value, but an absolute tol
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> I don't understand why they add the error tolerances together. I can
> understand taking the minimum, or the maximum:
The usual idea is that the tolerance is calculated as a relative
value, but an absolute tolerance is used instead when th
quot;close" if you give two tolerances
even though it fails each test individually:
py> numpy.allclose([1.2], [1.0], 0.0, 0.1) # Fails absolute error test.
False
py> numpy.allclose([1.2], [1.0], 0.1, 0.0) # Fails relative error test.
False
py> numpy.allclose([1.2], [
