Re: [boost] [math] RFC: comparison function objects

From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-25 13:50:00

>> Um, the problem I have with the asymmetric version, is this: which
>> parameter is the "true" value?
>
> The first one ;)

OK, the one time I tried things that way, I made it the second parameter :-)

> Jokes apart, if the programmer knows which is the "true" value (it
> might happen, really!)

Sure, it happens all the time if you're testing a special function for 
accuracy :-)

> I know that most programmers will use the symmetric version, but
> that's
> not a reason for not providing the asymmetric. The only thing is to
> choose good names so that everyone is happy and (most importantly)
> everyone knows what's he doing.

OK, how about relative_error and relative_difference ?  The latter is 
obviously intended as the symmetric version, but if that wasn't obvious it's 
not a good name :-)

John.