commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles Sadowski <>
Subject Re: [math] replace AbstractContinuousDistribution.getSolverAbsoluteAccuracy() with AbstractContinuousDistribution.getSolver()
Date Sun, 06 Nov 2011 14:59:28 GMT
On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 12:24:03AM -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 11/6/11 12:18 AM, S├ębastien Brisard wrote:
> >> +1, but your observation above then leads to the question where are
> >> you going to get this value from?  There may not be a solver to read
> >> it from.  I guess the default impl in the base class could just
> >> return BaseAbstractUnivariateRealSolver.DEFAULT_FUNCTION_VALUE_ACCURACY.
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> > Ah, that's one option I didn't think of. I intended to follow the same
> > scheme as for getSolverAbsoluteAccuracy(), which returns
> > solverAbsoluteAccuracy (private field), possibly initialized with
> > DEFAULT_SOLVER_ABSOLUTE_ACCURACY (see AbstractContinuousDistribution).
> > Actually, using the BaseAbstractUnivariateRealSolver default value is
> > probably better. However, these default values are private... So maybe
> > we will have to select reasonable default values here.
> Ugh.  I remember complaining about that (the fact that the defaults
> were made private) for precisely this kind of reason.  Have to clone
> the value, I guess and keep it in synch with whatever Brent uses.
> Phil
> > S├ębastien

[I did not follow all the details of this discussion; sorry if I'm slightly
off base.]  But, if somewhere some _default_ accuracy is needed to pass to a
_default_ solver, I'd say: instantiate the solver using its _default_
constructor; thus, no need to chase up instance variables used further up
the hierarchy.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message