> Trouble is, the algorithm Tom and Ulrich wants to denote OAVAR others > have already denoted AVAR, thus causing ambiguity.
One can equally say the algorithm you now want to call simply "AVAR" others long before you chose to call "overlapping AVAR" in order to clearly distinguish it from the pre-existing label that you no longer even want to call "AVAR". Personally I prefer to call it AVAR/ADEV when the implementation isn't relevant; and in those cases when it is, I specifically qualify the name with something like "normal" vs. "overlapping". That removes the ambiguity regardless of historical interpretation. We've beat this to death now and all understand the issues, yes? /tvb _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
