- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 17:55:25 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10073 --- Comment #10 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2010-07-05 17:55:25 --- >returned result must have all of its k decimal digits A definition that relies on converting the result to decimal digits seems only to add difficulty; it's better to define the double result without reference to its decimal equivalent. I don't think there's a real problem with the testability of the current definition. For example, consider sin(0.5e0) (for which Java gives 0.479425538604203) (a) Wolfram Alpha gives us the exact result 0.4794255386042030002732879352155713880818033679406000675..., (b) xs:string(xs:double(0.4794255386042030002732879352155713880818033679406000675)) is 0.479425538604203 which is a bit smaller (c) the rules therefore also allow the next double greater than this, which we can find by translating to the internal form 3fdeaee8744b05f0, adding one to give 3fdeaee8744b05f1, and translating back to a double which displays as the decimal 0.47942553860420306. The two acceptable answers for sin(0.5) are therefore these two xs:double values, so we can write the test as sin(0.5) = (xs:double(0.479425538604203), xs:double(0.47942553860420306)) We can write the above as the test query and "true" as the expected result. Of course the test results can be challenged if anyone believes that either the Wolfram Alpha result or any of the subsequent inferences is wrong. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 5 July 2010 17:55:27 UTC