On 21.01.2014, at 23:10, Dirk Hohndel <[email protected]> wrote: > did you try to compile that patch? > > FP_IS_SAME / IS_FP_SAME
ouch, you got me. After a good night’s sleep, here is another small amendment: As we have abstracted the equality testing into a macro it doesn’t hurt anymore in terms of readability to do the right thing™ rather than the simple thing: Allowing for a relative error rather than an absolute (which would set an artificial scale). This basically says “we trust our data (which comes from the dive computer’s measurement after all) to a certain number of significant digits” rather than “we will never encounter anything smaller than 1 / a million but not zero” which would be awfully unit dependent.
0001-Floating-point-equality-test-with-relative-rather-th.patch
Description: Binary data
Best
Robert
--
.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oO
Robert C. Helling Elite Master Course Theoretical and Mathematical Physics
Scientific Coordinator
Ludwig Maximilians Universitaet Muenchen, Dept. Physik
Phone: +49 89 2180-4523 Theresienstr. 39, rm. B339
http://www.atdotde.de
Enhance your privacy, use cryptography! My PGP keys have fingerprints
A9D1 A01D 13A5 31FA 6515 BB44 0820 367C 36BC 0C1D and
DCED 37B6 251C 7861 270D 5613 95C7 9D32 9A8D 9B8F
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.hohndel.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
