From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-12 15:04:43
Zach Laine wrote:
> On 8/10/07, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Discretization for the other series types is not useless. For sparse,
>> for example, it enforces that samples may only exist at offsets that are
>> a multiple of the discretization.
> I was reading the rest of your email and having a hard time understand
> how we were talking past each other so completely. Here is where I
> could first figure out how we'd gotten out of phase. I was operating
> under the impression that sparse series could have values at arbitrary
> offsets (not integer multiples of the discretization). It was this
> misunderstanding on my part that lead to my suggestion to remove
> discretization from some types. Consider it withdrawn. Though you're
> probably sick of hearing this, the use of discretization should be
> spelled out more explicitly in the documentation to make this clear.
OK, I think we're on the same page now, but just to clarify the
situation, the following two series are identical:
sparse_series<int> s( discretization = 5 );
dense_series<int> d( discretization = 5 );
These both have a 1 at offset 1, a 2 at offset 2 and a 3 at offset 3.
The offsets represent T=0,5,10 respectively due to the discretization.
Because the discretization is a logical multiplicative factor of the
offsets, the sparse series is guaranteed to have values only at points
that are multiples of the discretization; that is, T=0,5,10.
The docs have a ways to go to make this clear, I agree. But now that its
clear and your suggestion is withdrawn, is your objection to the time
series library also withdrawn?
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk