Hi, On Saturday, 30 of July 2005 15:13, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > px >= n + x > > > > > > or > > > > > > (p-1)x >= n > > > > > > or > > > > > > x >= n / (p-1). > > > > > > The obvious solution is > > > > > > x = ceiling(n / (p-1)), > > > > > > so calc_nr should return n + ceiling(n / (p-1)), which is exactly what > > > Michal's patch computes. > > > > Nice. :-) > > > > Could we perhaps add your proof to the Michal's patch as a comment, > > for reference? > > No, thanks. It only proves that it is equivalent to old code, but says > nothing about quality of code, and we really do not want to keep old > code around. IMHO it rather says that the formula is OK and would save some time to people reading the code for the _first_ time and trying to understand it, but you decide. :-) Greets, Rafael -- - Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here? - That depends a good deal on where you want to get to. -- Lewis Carroll "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
