>> 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.
Well, I asked on IRC what I should do for these definitions because I'm too tired to decide what to do. Ezio Melotti (Taggnostr) and R. David Murray (bitdancer) prefer your definition over the current definitions of accuracy, precision and resolution in the PEP. So I replaced these definitions with yours. Victor _______________________________________________ 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
