[Csnd] max_k minimum bug?
Date | 2013-11-14 14:57 |
From | jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk |
Subject | [Csnd] Re: max_k |
Attachments | None |
Date | 2013-11-14 19:44 |
From | joachim heintz |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: max_k |
i think writing max_k2 is the best solution indeed. thanks - joachim Am 14.11.2013 15:57, schrieb jpff@cs.bath.ac.uk: > The code is badly written. It assumes an answer of zero in all cases > and max or min as against previous value. > > This is a problem as the code has existed in this form for a long > time. If we fix it may break ond code. Esy to create a max_k2 that > does what the documentation says..... > > I need advice > > ==John ff > > Quoting zohar argaman |
Date | 2013-11-14 19:50 |
From | Andres Cabrera |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: max_k |
But if the opcode is not working according to the docs, maybe it should be considered a bug and the opcode should be fixed... I don't like polluting the language with version 2 of opcode because of a bug in one... Cheers,Andrés On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:44 AM, joachim heintz <jh@joachimheintz.de> wrote: i think writing max_k2 is the best solution indeed. |
Date | 2013-11-14 20:04 |
From | Michael Gogins |
Subject | Re: [Csnd] Re: max_k |
I agree with Andres. The code should agree with the documentation that was written for it, if that documentation makes sense. If there are a lot of pieces that break then the documentation should be changed, but only if the actual behavior itself makes sense.
We should probably be maintaining a "compatibility notes" wiki for issues like this. Regards, Mike ----------------------------------------------------- Michael GoginsIrreducible Productions http://michaelgogins.tumblr.com Michael dot Gogins at gmail dot com On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Andres Cabrera <mantaraya36@gmail.com> wrote:
|