Jerome BENOIT <sphericaltrian...@rezozer.net> writes:
> Before all, thanks for your constructive replies.
>
> On 21/10/16 21:34, Ben Finney wrote:
> > *Some* party is allowed to be stuck, but the current phrasing
> > doesn't say what; the description should be clear and say what that
> > party is.
>
> We are dealing here with a well known algorithm in the involved field.
> So the `party' is implicitly the algorithm. I have to confess that I am
> not familiar with this very algorithm. But the context let me think that
> it is a convergent algorithm and that the involved parameter is meant to
> control (numerical) convergence that goes out of control, what is a usual
> safeguard technique so to speak.
This seems to be overthing the question far too much.
I'll state it simply again: Please fill in the “<UNKNOWN>” in the text:
:param int max_no_dec: number of rounds we allow <UNKNOWN> to be stuck.
That will make the statement clearer, by removing an ambiguous unstated
party in the statement.
--
\ “Members of the general public commonly find copyright rules |
`\ implausible, and simply disbelieve them.” —Jessica Litman, |
_o__) _Digital Copyright_ |
Ben Finney
