
Boost : 
From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 20060424 04:18:23
"Alberto Ganesh Barbati" <abarbati_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:e2h7lb$mtt$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> Andy Little ha scritto:
>> "Alberto Ganesh Barbati" wrote
>>
>>> bool operator()(T x, T y) const { return abs(x  y) < eps; }
>>
>> Maybe should be:
>>
>> bool operator()(T x, T y) const { return abs(x  y) < abs(eps); }
>>
>> Because I have been caught out when eps was negative ;)
>> Negaitive eps is easy to do if it is some function of x y or both, which is
>> common e.g percentage etc.
>>
>
> Thanks for pointing that out. I would prefer getting the absolute value
> of eps once and for all in the constructor, in order to avoid repeated
> calls to abs() if the functor is invoked several times. eps could be
> made private to improve data hiding.
>
> However, I am inclined to require eps to be positive as a precondition,
> leaving to the programmer the responsibility to take the abs() if he
> deems it necessary. I bet most of the times eps will be positive if not
> even a compile time constant, so this design would fit in the "don't pay
> for what you don't use" paradigm.
Many times the "float error less than epsilon" test is used to terminate a
successive approximation routine, which will be an infinite loop if eps is
negative. Does a negative eps trigger an exception?
regards
Andy little
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk