| Re: the sky is falling down again [message #52348 is a reply to message #52347] |
Wed, 31 January 2007 11:28   |
![Bob[3] is currently offline](theme/default/images/xoffline.png.pagespeed.ic.XRkd1fkXye.png "Bob[3] is currently offline")
Bob[3]
Messages: 60
Registered: December 2006
|
Member |
|
|
On Jan 31, 1:52 pm, "R.G. Stockwell" <n...@email.please> wrote:
> I think this is the exact same thing as
> IDL> print, 10+2*10^(-7)
> 10
> and complaining that IDL is wrong.
I think it is. (the same thing, and wrong).
We both know why it's wrong - but thaty doesn't make it right.
> The rule is not to attempt to plot a point that is so far
> off the graph that 32 bit calculations do have the required
> precision.
Well as programmers we need to be aware of these limitations of the
underlying language (users cannot be expected to be).
> anyways, that is how i see it. i.e. as not a flaw in IDL, and
> not something they should fix in any priority over some of the
> other problems.
Well, in a case such as presented, either we (as programmers) need to
address it (via workarounds or by limiting users options) or ITTVIS
needs to.
>> Perhaps the plotting routine should first interpolate the line to the
>> extent or the plotted region first - or at least within the limit
>> posted by JD.
>
> I don't think we want the routine doing that sort of thing, nor
> do I want it to cook toast for me:actually, cook bread, the end
> result being toast of course :) .
Why not?
If done properly it'd at least present a correct plot - isn't that
what plot is supposed to do?
(besides plot is already frying the bacon and setting the table)
BTW I too have enjoyed the investigative nature of this thread, as
well as your perspective.
Bob.
|
|
|
|
comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
