Re: Follow-up questions for details on the "min distance" algorithm

On 2014-08-06 08:32, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> On 05/08/14 18:47, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>> We reached a rough consensus on pursing "min distance" in general, but
>> there are still a few details we need to decide on:
>>
>> 1. Harald proposed putting in the text something like "behave as
>> though this were the algorithm: ...", to make it clear that the
>> implementation doesn't have to implement it exactly like that,
>> especially when dealing with cameras that have ranges rather than a
>> set number of modes.  Is that OK with everyone?
>
> This makes a lot of sense (and in fact Giri brought this up already in
> the DC meeting and we said that all algorithm definitions should have
> that text).

I don't think we need specific text for this new algorithm. We currently 
have the text quoted below in the Conformance section that is intended 
to cover all algorithm-like text.

"Conformance requirements phrased as algorithms or specific steps may be 
implemented in any manner, so long as the end result is equivalent. (In 
particular, the algorithms defined in this specification are intended to 
be easy to follow, and not intended to be performant.)"

/Adam

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2014 05:44:53 UTC