Re: Point Comparison

From: Daniel de Rauglaudre (daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr)
Date: Wed Jan 19 2000 - 20:56:24 MET

Next message: Albert Garrido: "Unusual Bug."

Previous message: Mary Beth Wirtz Osiecki: "Re: Point Comparison"
In reply to: Mary Beth Wirtz Osiecki: "Re: Point Comparison"
Next in thread: Eric Depagne: "Re: Point Comparison"
Reply: Eric Depagne: "Re: Point Comparison"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> I thought the same thing when I saw it. Now I know that this is not exactly
> correct, but how about changing it to %complete or some such? Those who know
> will know, and those who don't won't be discouraged.

%complete, I dont know... To be 100% complete, we need billions of years.
The probability is not proportional to the number of points.

-- 
Daniel de RAUGLAUDRE
daniel.de_rauglaudre@inria.fr
http://cristal.inria.fr/~ddr/

Next message: Albert Garrido: "Unusual Bug."
Previous message: Mary Beth Wirtz Osiecki: "Re: Point Comparison"
In reply to: Mary Beth Wirtz Osiecki: "Re: Point Comparison"
Next in thread: Eric Depagne: "Re: Point Comparison"
Reply: Eric Depagne: "Re: Point Comparison"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 19 2000 - 20:57:03 MET