On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 04:19:52PM +0200, Markus Grunwald wrote: | On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 08:01:43 -0700 (PDT) | "Sean 'Shaleh' Perry" <shalehperry@attbi.com> wrote: | | > >> Your best option is to go for 3.1. | > > | > > but 3.1 is only in unstable! In testing it only goes till 3.0. How | > > does compare 3.0 with 3.1? | > | > 3.0 is reasonable, 3.1 just adds improvements in speed and | > architecture support. | | Using 3.0 with numeric calculations gave me tons of "nan" (not a | number), when I used optimisation. Doesn't seem too reasonable to | me... Could it be that the order in which you did the operations and/or the scale of the numbers you were working with caused overflows and such in those cases? It's just a thought ... -D -- Like a gold ring in a pig's snout is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion. Proverbs 11:22 http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/
Attachment:
pgpKcmwax9bU0.pgp
Description: PGP signature