Thread (8 messages) flat view 8 messages, 2 authors, 2016-06-15
  • (off-list ancestor, not in this archive)
  • Re: 100% · Johannes Schindelin <hidden> · 2016-06-15
  • Re: 100% · René Scharfe <hidden> · 2016-06-15
  • Re: 100% · Johannes Schindelin <hidden> · 2016-06-15
  • Re: 100% · René Scharfe <hidden> · 2016-06-15
  • Re: 100% · Johannes Schindelin <hidden> · 2016-06-15
  • Re: 100% · René Scharfe <hidden> · 2016-06-15
  • Re: 100% · Johannes Schindelin <hidden> · 2016-06-15
  • Re: 100% · René Scharfe <hidden> · 2016-06-15

Re: 100%

From: René Scharfe <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:43:17

Johannes Schindelin schrieb:
Hi,

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, René Scharfe wrote:
quoted
Johannes Schindelin schrieb:
quoted
By the same reasoning, you could say "never round down to 0%, because 
I want to know when there is no similarity".

You cannot be exact when you have to cut off fractions, so why try for 
_exactly_ one number?
Because completeness is special.
I am not convinced. My vote is still for the _common_ practice of just 
rounding. IOW keep it as is.
As I already hinted at, the common result of comparing two files, as
done by e.g. cmp(1), is one bit that indicates equality.  This
information is lost when using up/down rounding, but it is retained when
rounding down.  It's _not_ common to be unable to determine equality
from the result of a file compare.

René
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help