| 05:32.29 | brlcad | starseeker: slightly diff approach in order to avoid the mod, but the tolerance might need adjusting |
| 05:33.28 | brlcad | since CIA is offline, used Length() instead of IsSingleton() .. is considerably faster too relatively speaking, but probably not significantly |
| 05:35.36 | brlcad | wow, awesome: http://www.scribd.com/doc/107130136/Trabalho-Desenho-Tecnico-aplicado-BRLCAD-1º-Bimestre |
| 09:10.55 | *** join/#brlcad stas (~stas@188.24.40.209) |
| 11:56.33 | starseeker | brlcad: ah, k - that mod I'm not really concerned over though... exact floating point comparisons are going to mess with the utility of those functions regardless, unless they're intended for something other than what I thought they were for |
| 13:12.27 | brlcad | starseeker: yeah, I know -- that's part of a larger issue |
| 13:13.10 | brlcad | one that probably warrants a brief question to their newsgroup, whether they'd be receptive to a patch -- there's about a dozen exact comparisons that I'm aware of |
| 13:13.41 | brlcad | in the interval class's case, that one's a little more complicated because of the other < > range checks |
| 13:14.44 | brlcad | if nearness to zero is valid, it implies all the comparisons should take floating point into consideration or it becomes inconsistent with the class definition |
| 13:41.03 | *** join/#brlcad abhi2011 (~chatzilla@117.200.82.200) |
| 19:27.54 | *** join/#brlcad Stattrav (~Stattrav@ns.cmi.ac.in) |
| 19:27.55 | *** join/#brlcad Stattrav (~Stattrav@unaffiliated/stattrav) |