Re: interpretation of fit errors

[Bastian M. <bma...@we...>]

> But if it is some nuanced detailed that initially could be seen as a
> mistake in coding, then I'd say backward compatibility isn't so much an
> issue.

I am pretty sure that this was a deliberate choice. The reasoning being 
that as long as the fit is good, FIT_STDFIT is somehow close to 1. So it 
wouldn't hurt too much if "real" errors were given. See
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.graphics.gnuplot.devel/3737

> My fear with this is that a user could run the fit, get the results and
> significantly misinterpret what they mean by assuming errors were
> expressed as scaled or unscaled.

That is already the case. Most physicists I know incorrectly assume that 
gnuplot reports "unscaled" errors. Why not give them means to get what 
they expect?

   Bastian