On 11/6/11 7:59 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 12:24:03AM -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: >> On 11/6/11 12:18 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote: >>>> +1, but your observation above then leads to the question where are >>>> you going to get this value from? There may not be a solver to read >>>> it from. I guess the default impl in the base class could just >>>> return BaseAbstractUnivariateRealSolver.DEFAULT_FUNCTION_VALUE_ACCURACY. >>>> >>>> Phil >>>> >>> Ah, that's one option I didn't think of. I intended to follow the same >>> scheme as for getSolverAbsoluteAccuracy(), which returns >>> solverAbsoluteAccuracy (private field), possibly initialized with >>> DEFAULT_SOLVER_ABSOLUTE_ACCURACY (see AbstractContinuousDistribution). >>> Actually, using the BaseAbstractUnivariateRealSolver default value is >>> probably better. However, these default values are private... So maybe >>> we will have to select reasonable default values here. >> Ugh. I remember complaining about that (the fact that the defaults >> were made private) for precisely this kind of reason. Have to clone >> the value, I guess and keep it in synch with whatever Brent uses. >> >> Phil >>> Sébastien > [I did not follow all the details of this discussion; sorry if I'm slightly > off base.] But, if somewhere some _default_ accuracy is needed to pass to a > _default_ solver, I'd say: instantiate the solver using its _default_ > constructor; thus, no need to chase up instance variables used further up > the hierarchy.
Read the post. What is being reused is the default value itself. There may or may not be a solver instantiated. Phil > > > Gilles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
