On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Guido van Rossum <guido@python.org> wrote:

A) Which test do we use:
1) The asymmetric test
2) The "strong" test (minimum relative tolerance)
3) The "weak" test (maximum relative tolerance)

The problem with this question is that, while it's easy to come up with examples where it may matter (e.g. 95 is within 5% of 100, but 100 is not within %5 of 95), in practice the tolerance is more likely to be 1e-8, in which case it doesn't matter.

Exactly why I'm happy with any of them. I'm trying to suss out whether anyone else has a reason to reject one or the others. If no one does, then we can just pick one.

B) Do we provide a non-zero default for the absolute tolerance? If so what should the value be? Remember that this serves primarily to provide a check against zero.

It feels like absolute tolerance is a completely different test. And it is a much simpler test for which w don't need a helper function -- it's just abs(x) < tolerance.

When does a program need *both* absolute and relative tolerance in a single test?

Because we want it to be able to do something sane when comparing to zero -- the abs_tolerance allows you to set a minimum tolerance that will do something reasonable near zero (we could use a zero_tolerance, as Nathaniel has suggested, instead, but that creates the incontinuity that , for example, 1e-12 is close to zero, but it is not close to 1e-100 -- I think that's a bad idea for a call with the same arguments). I spend a good while thinking about this and playing with it, and it became clear to me that this is the best way to go for a not-to-surprising result. And it's consistent with what numpy and Steven's statistics test code does.

Still TBD is what the default should be, though.

I still think this is better off as a recipe than as a helper function.

Are you prepared to reject the PEP? I'd prefer to give it this one last shot at determining if there really is no way to get consensus on a good-enough solution. I suspect there is a lot of bike shedding here -- people have ideas about what is best, and want to understand and talk about it, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't rather see something else that nothing. -- that's certainly the case for me (both the bike shedding and the desire to see something ;-) )

Evidence: The numpy version has its faults -- but it's widely used. assertAlmost Equal has even more faults (limitations, anyway) but it's also widely used. Boost has something in it, even though it's a one-liner. Clearly this is a useful functionality to have available.

ChrisA is right -- I have not done a good job at steering the group toward a consensus.

-Chris

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA 98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

Chris.Barker@noaa.gov