On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/04/2016 12:30 AM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> + return 10 * score - bonus;
>>
>> Would it make sense to define-ify the 10 as well
>> as this is the only hardcoded number in the
>> scoring function?
>
> I started answering this question by explaining why it is not important
> to *optimize* the number 10 (namely because scores are only ever
> compared against other scores, so an overall scaling factor makes no
> difference). The factor 10 only has to be large enough to provide enough
> dynamic range for the other (adjustable) parameters.
But it only scales the score, not the bonus. So another way to write it
would be
score - bonus/10;
assuming the values of score and bonus are large enough.
In some prior conversation you said you take the indent and add an epsilon
for some special conditions to make one indent better than the other.
Epsilons are usually very small compared to the rest of the equation,
but if I look at the boni definitions ranging from -63..50 they are scaled up
so much that the bonus may become larger than '1' unit of 'score', i.e.
it is not an epsilon any more. Or to put it another way:
If we were to s/10/100/ the results would be worse.
Rather the 10 describes the ratio of "advanced magic" to pure indentation
based scoring in my understanding.
>
> But I think you are asking a simpler question: should we give this
> constant a name rather than hardcoding it? I don't see a strong reason
> for or against, so I'll give it a name in the next version, as you suggest.
Thanks,
Stefan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html