Al Chou wrote:
--- Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Al Chou wrote:
--- Brent Worden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Steitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:21 PM
[deletia]
Something similar to JUnit's assertEquals(double expected, double actual,
double epsilon).
This is a good idea.
Is JUnit's license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php) Apache
compatible?
I think that Brent is talking about defining a new function called
something like approximatelyEquals() that returned a boolean. The
signature, semantics and implementation of this would be different from
JUnit.
Ah, OK. That could be useful indeed.
Simple methods like isPositive, isNegative, etc. can be used to make
boolean
expressions more human readable.
I'm willing to build those two on top of sign (I'm so generous with my
coding
time, eh? <g>). Are those two sufficient? sign treats 0 as positive,
which
may not be desirable.
+1 (especially the part about your time :-)
OK, I'll TDD those up, hopefully resolving the question of what to do about the
sign of 0 in the process.
Forgot to weigh in on this. I would say that 0 is neither positive nor
negative. If that is not a happy state, I would prefer to call
isPositive, "isNonNegative". I know that is ugly, I have a hard time
calling 0 a positive number. So, my first should would be isPositive
and isNegative both fail for zero, second would be to rename as above.
Al
=====
Albert Davidson Chou
Get answers to Mac questions at http://www.Mac-Mgrs.org/ .
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
