Warp wrote:
> 
> Greg M. Johnson <"gregj56590[:-0]"@aol.com> wrote:
> : I think that the proposed change to the equation would give an intuitively
> : pleasing response to what you'd think of if the "visibility were zero" in a
> : fog.
> 
>   I don't understand why is it so difficult to just write a 1e-10 instad
> of 0.

I agree. Stop tweaking formulae/equation, there is already enough bugs in
them already without adding 'pleasant kludge "because I want it to be 0"'.
Rather protect at parse time: if value is not strictly positive, reports Error
and stop parsing.

Or for the strange people which wants to play with negative fog (what is it, 
I do not know), protect only against 0.0 , if they are really to be pleased.

Post a reply to this message