>>>>> "JT" == James Treworgy <jamie@stripped> writes:
JT> Okay, have read thread, and understand rationale, but still disagree with
JT> implementation, since I think the mathematical interpretation is in more
JT> common usage than the statistical interpretation, and certainly more
JT> intuitive since everyone gets taught to round up halves in early
JT> algebra. How about an optional parameter to define the functionality?
No; the direction of a round() function has *never* in computer
language history been agreed upon.
In a class I was taking with Fred Brooks a few years back, he
discussed the time he was working on a new language for one of the
earlier IBM mainframes. When it came time to define the round()
function, there was no agreement from the different types of users
they had. The answer was to add ceiling and floor functions to the
language to let the programmer explicitly decide what they wanted.
This was the first time such fine control was given to the programmer.
If you don't know who Fred Brooks is, then I guess you won't believe that
this is the right way to do it... ;-)
Vivek Khera, Ph.D. Khera Communications, Inc.
Internet: khera@stripped Rockville, MD +1-301-545-6996
PGP & MIME spoken here http://www.kciLink.com/home/khera/