From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-31 15:56:25
On Jan 31, 2007, at 10:26 AM, John Maddock wrote:
> Paul A Bristow wrote:
>> PS and about your torture test - I don't think this should be the
>> focus of the review.
>> There are horses for courses, and the not-always-accurate version
>> should be fine for most applications. (If the data are going to be as
>> unreasonable as the torture data are, one could argue that they are
> In case it wasn't clear from my post, I actually agree with this. The
> library can be extended to more/better algorithms at a later date
> the important thing at this stage is the framework.
> What is important though is documentation: most people would miss
> the suble
> difference between the "immediate" and "naive" variance
> calculations, and
> potentially (although very rairly) fall into all kinds of hard-to-spot
It might be useful to have variance(accurate) as an alternative, or
just to allow the accurate option to all features.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk