You can compare results to those produced by the
org.apache.commons.math.dfp package.
On Fri, 21 Jan 2011, sebb wrote:
On 21 January 2011 13:19, Gilles Sadowski <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello.
When proposing code, I think that you might get better attention by posting
to the "dev" ML.
I changed the license for my code and wrote some junit tests while refactoring.
I think there are many improvements since I originally emailed. I have not had
any off list expressions of interest and I wonder if there is yet any other
interest in making this available as part of Commons Math?
If the functionality is desired (let's wait for the others to answer this),
there would nevertheless be quite some changes needed for the code to fit in
Commons Math; a few things I noticed by glancing at the source:
* "main" methods
* access to "System.out" for printing
* not fully documented
* class names contain an underscore
Also package names are not org.apache.commons.mathx.
There are also some @author tags which ought to be removed - credit
can be give elsewhere.
[Author tags quickly become unmanageable in code that is developed by
a community]
[...]
The main reason I developed this code was that I needed to raise a BigDecimal
to the power of another BigDecimal. Dealing with all the different cases has
been a challenge. Although I'm not 100% confident I have handled every case,
I'm reasonably happy with this effort.
In terms of junit tests: where the expected result was not obvious to me and I
could think of no obvious other way to calculate it using the java core code, I
have used results returned from my methods to set expected results. This is
better than nothing, but developers of this code should be warned that test
failures may be a result of original errors rather than as a consequence of
changes they have made. I wonder if there are some canonical math compliance
test data that I should use... I was thinking that I should document or use
some attribution or something to distinguish the different types of test if I
got this far.
Does anyone have any good advice for me at this stage?
It certainly would be better to compare with the results of another library.
At least, the "self-tests" should be marked as such.
I know that Perl has "Math::BigInt" and "Math::BigFloat" modules that might
be used to compute independent results.
Also, some of the test cases are very large - it's better to have lots
of smaller tests, so all errors can be found at once.
Thanks,
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
