Refactoring #1538

Feature #1534: === Parameter handling ===

AttLimits::isInRange(value) returns true for value==m_lower_limit, and false for value==m_upper_limit

Added by wuttke about 4 years ago. Updated about 3 years ago.

Status:RejectedStart date:27 Jul 2016
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:-% Done:

0%

Category:-
Target version:-

Description

Current implementation is

bool AttLimits::isInRange(double value) const
{
    if(hasLowerLimit() && value < m_lower_limit) return false;
    if(hasUpperLimit() && value >= m_upper_limit) return false;
    return true;
}

Why this asymmetric handling of lower and upper limit? What would be a better choice? Do we possibly need a extra bits to tell whether lower and upper limits are allowed values?

Long-term idea: if a limit is excluded from a range, then upon approaching this limit, a GUI slider or a fit algorithm could automatically cross-over to logarithmic handling of that variable.

History

#1 Updated by wuttke about 4 years ago

  • Subject changed from AttLimits::isInRange(value) allows value==m_lower_limit but not for value==m_upper_limit to AttLimits::isInRange(value) returns true for value==m_lower_limit, and false for value==m_upper_limit

#2 Updated by pospelov about 3 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Rejected

Rejected, see #1823

Also available in: Atom PDF