> > more obvious what is happening- and the behavior is documented.
> > point-to-point comparison (rather than implicit).
> the readership, but it's clearer in my mind now I've written it down.
explictly visible. In either case the resampling occurs.
>Isn't the comparator object wonderful?
just a few break points in your spec it might be useful.
>that decision is made, it would be nice to be able to provide it.
it sure can confuse you while debugging.
>Bill - thanks for your comments.
>> just a few break points in your spec it might be useful.
>get the "mapping" from the x-values (assuming they are monotonic).
Probably not worth following . . . don't worry about it.
>suppose), I can't compare point to point.
explaining the behavior of an undocumented feature to a client.
Bill - thanks for your comments.
> just a few break points in your spec it might be useful.
get the "mapping" from the x-values (assuming they are monotonic).
suppose), I can't compare point to point.
> >suppose), I can't compare point to point.
> explaining the behavior of an undocumented feature to a client.
more obvious what is happening- and the behavior is documented.
point-to-point comparison (rather than implicit).
> > comparison (rather than implicit).
your own algorithm. They just helped me out.
> more obvious what is happening- and the behavior is documented.
> point-to-point comparison (rather than implicit).
the readership, but it's clearer in my mind now I've written it down.
either lie on the curve, above the curve, or below the curve.
compare of the area under each curve. Hmmm, gotta check this.
that decision is made, it would be nice to be able to provide it.