On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 11:32:07PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > It offends my aesthetic senses as a programmer. ;-) > > Rewriting it as > > >>> e. If a majority of n:m is required for A, and B is the default > >>> option, N(B,A) is (n/m). In all other cases, N(B,A) is 1. > > doesn't look any more verbose to me.
True. It's more complicated but it's not really all that much more verbose. Focussing on aesthetics: right now the only two supermajority ratios possible are 2:1 and 3:1 -- the numbers 2 and 3 are easy to represent. Asking for something more general, without specifying what that more general thing is going to solve, invites all sort of complexity having to do with the [non-existant] possibilities. Is there another reason for introducing that complexity? As an aside: the code I wrote to test this implementation uses an array of integers to keep track of supermajority and the default option. Currently, each vote can have a 0 (default), 1 (normal majority), 2 (2:1 supermajority) or 3 (3:1 supermajority). You seem to be suggesting that I use floats for this array rather than integers, and I'd like to understand why floats are better in this context. If it's because floats are more aesthetically pleasing, then I'd like to know why they're more pleasing. Thanks, -- Raul
