Re: Regarding Q. 14-5

Mark McIntyre wrote: 
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 11:41:40 -0500, in comp.lang.c , Eric Sosman
<esosman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Your point was that the test `f <= 1.0' is "dangerous."


Clearly you missed my point. Which was that you erroneously stated
that you can't meaningfully use an epsilon. This is, as I'm sure
you're aware, garbage. 


As far as I can tell, everyone else on the thread rejects
this point as invalid.  You yourself reject it when you
accept a zero epsilon as suitable.


Seemingly you aren't actually reading what I'm writing, you're just
responding to my criticism of you by attacking me. Your problem, not
mine. 

    A thousand apologies: Indeed, I misread what you wrote.
Searching up-thread I see that it was not you but Malcolm
who claimed that `f <= 1.0' is "dangerous," and it's that
rash claim I've been disputing.

    Once again, sorry for my mistake.

--
Eric Sosman
esosman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Regarding Q. 14-5
    ... >where a suitable definition of epsilon, is zero, ... >that the use of epsilon isn't required. ... Mark McIntyre ... CLC FAQ ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Regarding Q. 14-5
    ... >>Mark McIntyre wrote: ... >>> The solution is indeed to compare ... that the use of epsilon isn't required. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Regarding Q. 14-5
    ... >> The solution is indeed to compare to 1+epsilon, ... >it would be inappropriate to make use of DBL_EPSILON. ... Mark McIntyre ... CLC FAQ ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Regarding Q. 14-5
    ... that you can't meaningfully use an epsilon. ... you're aware, garbage. ... Mark McIntyre ... CLC FAQ ...
    (comp.lang.c)