From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Scharfe?= Subject: Re: 100% Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:11:20 +0200 Message-ID: <467D0DE8.6030104@lsrfire.ath.cx> References: <20070621030622.GD8477@spearce.org> <20070621131915.GD4487@coredump.intra.peff.net> <467B777D.C47BFE0E@eudaptics.com> <86ps3oi7ma.fsf_-_@lola.quinscape.zz> <86abusi1fw.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <467CF380.6060603@lsrfire.ath.cx> <467D06D4.9050203@lsrfire.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Kastrup , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 23 14:11:34 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I24Sk-0005KH-9T for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:11:34 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751489AbXFWMLc convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:11:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751397AbXFWMLc (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:11:32 -0400 Received: from static-ip-217-172-187-230.inaddr.intergenia.de ([217.172.187.230]:35997 "EHLO neapel230.server4you.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750833AbXFWMLb (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jun 2007 08:11:31 -0400 Received: from [10.0.1.201] (p508E514E.dip.t-dialin.net [80.142.81.78]) by neapel230.server4you.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D3E2C00D; Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:11:30 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (Windows/20070604) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Johannes Schindelin schrieb: > Hi, >=20 > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007, Ren=E9 Scharfe wrote: >=20 >> Johannes Schindelin schrieb: >> >>> By the same reasoning, you could say "never round down to 0%, becau= se=20 >>> I want to know when there is no similarity". >>> >>> You cannot be exact when you have to cut off fractions, so why try = for=20 >>> _exactly_ one number? >> Because completeness is special. >=20 > I am not convinced. My vote is still for the _common_ practice of jus= t=20 > rounding. IOW keep it as is. As I already hinted at, the common result of comparing two files, as done by e.g. cmp(1), is one bit that indicates equality. This information is lost when using up/down rounding, but it is retained whe= n rounding down. It's _not_ common to be unable to determine equality from the result of a file compare. Ren=E9