On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 21:59, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>
> Nice, you managed to simplify it even further.
> I think the comment and the code now are crystal clear together.
>
> I've tested it successfully, test report attached.
>
Cool. Thanks for testing.
Committed.
Regards,
Dean
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, at 20:25, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> That seems a bit wordy, given the context of this comment. I think
> it's sufficient to just give the formula, and note that it simplifies
> when DEC_DIGITS is even (not just 4):
>
> /*
> * Assume the input was normalized, so arg.weight
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 15:05, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>
> I also think the performance impact no matter how small isn't worth it,
> but a comment based on your comments would be very valuable IMO.
>
> Below is an attempt at summarising your text, and to avoid the performance
> impact,
> maybe an #if
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, at 14:40, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> That's still not right. If you want a proper mathematically justified
> formula, it's fairly easy to derive.
...
> or equivalently, in code with truncated integer division:
>
> if (arg.weight >= 0)
> sweight = arg.weight * DEC_D
On Tue, 31 Jan 2023 at 08:00, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>
> I think this is what we want:
>
> if (arg.weight < 0)
> sweight = (arg.weight + 1) * DEC_DIGITS / 2 - 1;
> else
> sweight = arg.weight * DEC_DIGITS / 2 + 1;
>
That's still not right. If you want
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023, at 14:33, Dean Rasheed wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 at 22:14, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>> HEAD, patched:
>> sweight = (arg.weight * DEC_DIGITS) / 2 + 1
>
> You haven't actually said why this formula is more correct than the
> current one. I believe that it is when arg.we
On Sat, 28 Jan 2023 at 22:14, Joel Jacobson wrote:
>
> I found what appears to be a small harmless error in numeric.c,
> that seems worthwhile to fix only because it's currently causes confusion.
>
Shrug. Looking at git blame, it's been like that for about 20 years,
and I wasn't aware of it causi
