On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Greg L greg_l_at_wikipedia@comcast.net wrote:
Focusing on a key assumption of yours, Gregory: "Adding a number fudging kludge to produce a less accurate result…"
Is this true? It seems that Robert Rohde is suggesting that his code turns round-off errors back to their intended values. Is your assumption true that this tweak MUST necessarily also occasionally fudge up correct results into incorrect ones?
<snip>
My code assumes floor( 4.9999999999 ) should really be floor(5) = 5.
If someone really expects floor( 4.9999999999 ) to be 4, then from their point of view that is an error.
No floating point logic is going to satisfy absolutely everyone, but I do think making the former assumption is going to satisfy the expectations of more people than making the latter choice does.
-Robert Rohde