On 10/8/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This would have several advantages. Randomized algorithms could be > > run repeatably, for testing or debugging. All of our "random" > > doctests could be tested, instead of ignored. > > Some (many?) of the random doctests are the result of differing > inexact floating point calculations.
True. However, a few days ago I realized there is a much better solution to this problem. Use ... in the output. E.g., instead of something like sage: sin(1.0) # random low-order bits 0.841470984807897 we do sage: sin(1.0) 0.8414709848078... and then all but the last 2 digits are checked, and them being wrong is sort of clear to the reader of the doctest. Thoughts? > > > > > I would be willing to work on this, if people think it's a good idea. > > What do you think? > > I think it is a great idea whose time is way overdue. I agree. However, I strongly encourage people to discuss this a bit longer in sage-devel before implementing something. Whatever we do it will likely be easy to implement but hard to design. -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
