OK ok ok. I admit and agree my original patch was flawed. Dumbing down
need
not be done just for my benefit.
--J
On 2019-12-19 21:34, Theo de Raadt wrote:
Yes, it should be fixed. I'll let the math nerds crawl through the
tree looking for additional errors.
My objection stands, that we should not dumb this down.
Andras Farkas <[email protected]> wrote:
Not to appeal to majority, but to compare and contrast...
FreeBSD, NetBSD, POSIX, and Solaris all use the correct (or the more
explicit) interval notation for [0.0, 1.0) in drand48.3
https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=drand48&apropos=0&sektion=3&manpath=FreeBSD+12.1-RELEASE+and+Ports&arch=default&format=html
https://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?drand48+3
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/drand48.html
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E88353_01/html/E37843/drand48-3c.html
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E26505_01/html/816-5168/drand48-3c.html
(though, Solaris's latter two of three intervals are wrong, unless
they really do mean their upper bound is inclusive)
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:48 PM Andras Farkas
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:05 PM Theo de Raadt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > It's a mathematical notation that anyone using this page should
> > understand because it comes with the territory.
> > [snip]
> >
> > I think understanding the landscape's notation is a requirement, and we
> > don't need to say things a 2nd time in baby talk.
> I agree it doesn't need to be repeated, but I think there's value in
> explicitly showing whether an interval is open or closed.
> Though, in this case, the interval would be correctly expressed as
> [0.0, 1.0)
> or
> [0.0, 1.0[
> rather than how j's diff does it.
>
> I attached a diff which I feel concisely does this. I elected to not
> change the latter two of the three intervals in the man page, since
> they already included -1 in their upper bound. But I also have that
> as an option, via largediff.txt
