The new distribution is better because it is far more uniform, which is the entire purpose. The proposed rule is extremely simple. The email exchange was about how to implement the formula in a computationally efficient algorithm without going through a lookup table. That is something quite different. I would say that the current LRM algorithm is highly non-intuitive and therefore misleading and unexpected. Also not what users would want. Shalom 2055 ___ Yes _X_ No It is unclear how the new distribution is any better. As I wrote earlier, "the rule needs to be unambiguous, but it must also be simple enough for users to figure out what happened." Coverage reports must be actionable, that is, users need to be able to easily determine how to cover certain bins, and this proposal complicates that determination. I believe that simplicity trounces the need for uniformity. As proof of how complex the new rules are, I submit the email exchange between Steven Sharp and Shalom - it took these two experts several iterations to arrive at a correct formula. Are we seriously suggesting users must do this computation in their heads? The current rule is simplistic but predictable. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Oct 25 13:02:54 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 25 2007 - 13:03:08 PDT