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.