Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2011 23:58:42 +0200
From: Gilles Sadowski <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org>
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Subject: Re: Default threshold in "LUDecompositionImpl"
Message-ID: <20110905215842.GX19625@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
Mail-Followup-To: dev@commons.apache.org
References: <20110905132323.GS19625@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
 <4E651125.1000806@free.fr>
 <20110905212348.GW19625@dusk.harfang.homelinux.org>
 <4E6540AE.20708@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <4E6540AE.20708@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-DCC-scarlet.be-Metrics: eir 20001; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.1-exp at eir
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 02:35:42PM -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/5/11 2:23 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 08:12:53PM +0200, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> >> Le 05/09/2011 15:23, Gilles Sadowski a �crit :
> >>> Hello.
> >> Hi Gilles,
> >>
> >>> There might be a typo in the value for the default singularity threshold
> >>> value in class "LUDecompositionImpl" (at line 37): Was
> >>>  10E-12
> >>> the intended value, or was it
> >>>  1e-12
> >>> ?
> >> It is probably a typo, but the exact value was certainly chosen
> >> almost arbitrarily. However, since it has now been published and
> >> changing it may break code, I would suggest to write it 1e-11.
> > Done in revision 1165416.
> 
> Should we maybe make the default public?

The fewer "public" things, the better. [As it becomes part of the API, and
thus ... (known story).]

I think that we should view those simplified constructors as "syntactic
sugar" for those users and situations for which the exact value does not
matter.
If the default is made public, it seems that there was a rationale behind
choosing the particular value. Which is not the case here, according to Luc.

There are some other occurences in CM where I already indicated my
preference for keeping "private" the variable holding the default value, for
the same reason.


Regards,
Gilles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org