From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-31 04:26:57
Paul A Bristow wrote:
> PS and about your torture test - I don't think this should be the
> focus of the review.
>
> There are horses for courses, and the not-always-accurate version
> should be fine for most applications. (If the data are going to be as
> unreasonable as the torture data are, one could argue that they are
> wrong!
In case it wasn't clear from my post, I actually agree with this. The
library can be extended to more/better algorithms at a later date anyway,
the important thing at this stage is the framework.
What is important though is documentation: most people would miss the suble
difference between the "immediate" and "naive" variance calculations, and
potentially (although very rairly) fall into all kinds of hard-to-spot
traps.
John.