Re: lintian: spelling
Before all, thanks for your constructive replies.
On 21/10/16 21:34, Ben Finney wrote:
> Octavio Alvarez <octaldml@alvarezp.org> writes:
>
>> On 10/21/2016 04:56 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
>>> I would suggest:
>>>
>>> :param int max_no_dec: number of rounds we allow [FIXME] to be stuck.
>>>
>>> where “[FIXME]” must be replaced with something explicit. Is it “the
>>> program”? “the network connection”? Some other party? It's not
>>> specified, and I think Lintian is correct to complain.
>>
>> What about:
>>
>> :param int max_no_dec: number of rounds we allow being stuck
>
> Still far too ambiguous. Why not just *explicitly* state what party is
> granted the allowance?
>
> *Some* party is allowed to be stuck, but the current phrasing doesn't
> say what; the description should be clear and say what that party is.
We are dealing here with a well known algorithm in the involved field.
So the `party' is implicitly the algorithm. I have to confess that I am
not familiar with this very algorithm. But the context let me think that
it is a convergent algorithm and that the involved parameter is meant to
control (numerical) convergence that goes out of control, what is a usual
safeguard technique so to speak.
>
--
Jerome BENOIT | calculus+at-rezozer^dot*net
https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=calculus@rezozer.net
AE28 AE15 710D FF1D 87E5 A762 3F92 19A6 7F36 C68B
Reply to: