On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Victor Stinner <victor.stin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If anyone is motivated to write a perfect (or at least better) glossary, > please do it! We don't want a perfect glossary, we want one we agree on, that defines terms consistently with the way they're used in the PEP. However, what I read in this thread is that the PEP protagonist doesn't feel qualified or motivated to maintain the glossary, and others posting that surely we agree on what we're talking about even though the definitions in the PEP are controversial and at least one (resolution) is close to meaningless in actual use. It bothers me that we are writing code without having agreement about the terms that define what it's trying to accomplish. Especially when an important subset of users who I think are likely to care (viz, the scientific and engineering community) seems likely to use different definitions. Has anybody asked people on the scipy channels what they think about all this? > It already contains a link to the Wikipedia article "Accuracy_and_precision". Well, its definitions differ of precision and resolution differ from the PEP's. I'm disturbed that the PEP does not remark about this despite citing it. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
