: On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 10:31:01PM -0800, Chris Barker wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Zero Piraeus <schesis@gmail.com> wrote:
Note that my example was an any_close() function, not an all_close() one. I doubt anyone's seriously going to suggest adding *three* new functions, so anyone who wants something like that will by necessity end up rolling their own.
OK -- that is pretty compelling --- I have been looking for use-cases for where having a symmetrical test would be a clear advantage, and this is one.
But this is where I'm unclear -- is this "any_close" function something you think is a real use case -- i.e. you have needed such a thing, or think there is a strong chance that you will. Or just something that _could_ be done.
I have needed an any_close() function in the past, but used absolute tolerances, so it's not particularly relevant to the discussion (except maybe that if is_close() existed, I might have used it just because it was there without really thinking things through).
Granted, I think your point is that if it _could_ be done, there is a good chance that _someone_ will do it -- and with that in mind we want as few surprising behaviors in the standard lib as possible.
Yep. -[]z. -- Zero Piraeus: pons asinorum http://etiol.net/pubkey.asc