>> - how to deal with / construct tests for functions / ranges where 'long' and
>> 'double' version have justified different results?
( how to build tests which allow / demand improved results, but accept
'double accuracy results' when using double datatype? )
let me give it an
but not yet clear to me:
- should 'trig.xls' be subject to a test, or do we have enough testing for trigonometric functions in other tests, e.g. that for complex numbers?
- how to deal with - construct tests for functions / ranges where 'long' and 'double' version have justified
as often with gnumeric, you ( I ) think to have a good idea ... it's already in ...
there is a function 'sinpi' which calculates sin for multiples of 휋 to better accuracy. same for cos and tan, not for asin, acos, atan.
IMHO it's still considerable to change the results of sin(x*pi()),
hello @Steve D'Aprano,
I had - tried - in my mail to point out the only approximate accuracy of pi(), but assumed that pi() should basically represent 휋, and not be a deliberately deviating other value.
I think this view has its justification since:
- it intuitively imposes itself to
