From: Ethan M. <merritt@u.washington.edu> - 2007-04-09 23:59:01
|
I take that to mean you agree that we have no basis on which to say that dbl_raise is "better" than pow. Therefore the comment is correct, and nothing needs to be changed. That's the end of it so far as I'm concerned. Ethan On Monday 09 April 2007 16:54, Daniel J Sebald wrote: > Ethan Merritt wrote: > > > I have no idea, because I can't for the life of me figure out what > > the issue is here. What problem are you trying to fix? > > If there's no problem, just forget the whole thing. > > Repeat: > > > Anyway, if we think that the dbl_raise() is the preferred route, all that need > > be done is remove the comment "FIXME, is this needed?" and give a short > > explanation why it is needed. > > This will prevent anyone in the future from looking at this and asking "What > needs to be fixed?", i.e., the same question you are asking, "because I can't > for the life of me figure out what the issue is here." That's the trap I fell in. > > Dan > -- Ethan A Merritt Courier Deliveries: 1959 NE Pacific Dept of Biochemistry Health Sciences Building University of Washington - Seattle WA 98195-7742 |