On 05.06.2006 12:23:45 Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2006, at 10:32, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > Apologies for that one and thanks for fixing it. I guess I was not
> > looking far enough up in the Ant log.
> No problem. Just a lucky coincidence I was following the build
> output, or wouldn't have noticed it myself :)
> > I've modified the build so I can
> > set a property which makes it stop immediately when a failure is
> > encountered. So I hope this won't occur again (provided I run the
> > tests
> > in the first place). :-)
> Sounds like a good idea.
> BTW: I hope the checks are right now. Seemed a bit silly at first to
> simply reproduce the calculation that is made by the method...
> could've put an absolute value there, but the end-result is the same,
> I guess.
I thought about that. First reaction to reusing the constant from
UnitConv was: Uhm, hmm, shrug. :-)
But I think it would probably conceptually better to replicate the value
instead of using the constants. If someone changes the constant, we
won't find out (other than by looking at the SVN log).