On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:48:20 +0100, Petr Rockai wrote: > ============== ======= ====== ========== ====== > 2.3 dev 2.3.99.2 dev > ============== ======= ====== ========== ====== > (un)revert mod 99.8ms 0.8ms 94.7ms 1.6ms
Nice! > > Other comments are that (a) it may not be necessary to display the > > deviation units if we always use the same one and (b) it may be useful > > to display the sample size (ugh, that's getting wide again). > Well, if we insist on same units, that still poses problem for things > like 3s, where the deviation would get very little precision (1 digit at > most). Maybe it would also make sense to get the numbers formatted with > at most 1 decimal place, instead of exactly 1, although that lose > decimal point alignment. I think it may be OK for the stddev to have different units than the timings (as long as it's the same across the row). But let's see if we can get away with just your idea of at most one precision. > For sample, maybe we can encode it differently, say ?22s for <6 samples, > ~22s for 6-20 and just 22s for over 20? That only adds one character and > only for the "dubious" cases. This can then go to the legend. I like it. Hopefully (in the future) we can use criterion to tell us if we should be saying "?", "~" or "" -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
