On Apr 7, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Curtis Olson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Well, so far the samples usually looked something like this:
<ambient>0.2 0.4 0.1 0.5</ambient>. Doesn't look *that* bad, indeed.
But in reality floats don't usually have just one digit after the
comma. What about this?
<foo>2345.1239878725027 235.237926028973 558.1283745628374
9.123242342346</foo>
There goes the nicety.
Long ugly numbers or long ugly numbers. We can split them up and
they are slightly more readable, abut they are still long ugly
numbers. We've made things slightly longer, and slightly less ugly,
but I don't know if we've improved the overall score. It depends
how we weight our priorities.
<foo>
<entry>2345.1239878725027</entry>
<entry>235.237926028973</entry>
<entry>558.1283745628374</entry>
<entry>9.123242342346M</entry>
</foo>
As long as this is only an XML markup
question, the disadvantages are:
- higher failure probability
Why is there a higher probability of failure? If I want to stretch
to make a point, I could suggest that forcing a developer to type in
more xml tags also increases the probability of making a typo. But
I think this whole point is very weak.
I know better then contribute to this discussion but ....
<foo>
2345.1239878725027
235.237926028973
558.1283745628374
9.123242342346
</foo>
Looks best to me
Norman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment.
Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
