[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lowe
From: |
Lachlan Andrew |
Subject: |
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk |
Date: |
Mon, 11 Jul 2016 02:17:07 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:43.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0 |
Update of bug #37613 (project octave):
Assigned to: dbateman => caliari
Release: 3.4.3 => dev
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #22:
Some trivial feedback on the patch:
* The new assert in the BIST is much longer than 80 characters. Could it
rewritten to fit under 79 characters? Perhaps defining
f = @(x) x x .^ 5 .* exp (-x) .* sin (x)
would help.
* Is it worth retaining the comment "Shampine suggests 100*eps"?
* The code
+ if (any (abs (diff (x, [], 2) ./ max (abs (x), [], 2))) < 100 * eps)
+ tooclose = true;
+ return;
+ else
+ tooclose = false;
+ endif
hides the fact that this is an early return. How about
if (any (abs (diff (x, [], 2) ./ max (abs (x), [], 2))) < 100 * eps)
tooclose = true;
return;
endif
tooclose = false;
* Should "tooclose" be "too_close"?
* I don't like shadowing the function eps by a variable. I know that was in
the existing code, but it is also done in the new __quadgk_eval__. How about
calling it eps1, since it is eps (1)?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?37613>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk,
Lachlan Andrew <=