Yes, it should be fixed. I'll let the math nerds crawl through the tree looking for additional errors.
My objection stands, that we should not dumb this down. Andras Farkas <deepbluemist...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not to appeal to majority, but to compare and contrast... > FreeBSD, NetBSD, POSIX, and Solaris all use the correct (or the more > explicit) interval notation for [0.0, 1.0) in drand48.3 > https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=drand48&apropos=0&sektion=3&manpath=FreeBSD+12.1-RELEASE+and+Ports&arch=default&format=html > https://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?drand48+3 > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/drand48.html > https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E88353_01/html/E37843/drand48-3c.html > https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E26505_01/html/816-5168/drand48-3c.html > (though, Solaris's latter two of three intervals are wrong, unless > they really do mean their upper bound is inclusive) > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:48 PM Andras Farkas > <deepbluemist...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:05 PM Theo de Raadt <dera...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > > It's a mathematical notation that anyone using this page should > > > understand because it comes with the territory. > > > [snip] > > > > > > I think understanding the landscape's notation is a requirement, and we > > > don't need to say things a 2nd time in baby talk. > > I agree it doesn't need to be repeated, but I think there's value in > > explicitly showing whether an interval is open or closed. > > Though, in this case, the interval would be correctly expressed as > > [0.0, 1.0) > > or > > [0.0, 1.0[ > > rather than how j's diff does it. > > > > I attached a diff which I feel concisely does this. I elected to not > > change the latter two of the three intervals in the man page, since > > they already included -1 in their upper bound. But I also have that > > as an option, via largediff.txt
