Re: opt_bs bug?

[Hal <hal ashburner info>]

I'm sorry, the phrase "use in anger" means "use to get some actual work 
done", eg some valuation for investment or trading purposes, academic 
research or similar. As opposed to experimentation or others' 
hypothetical use. I seem to be very bad at separating the local 
vernacular from that which is understood by all English speakers and I 
apologise for this.

Are you actually using these functions for real work?
If you do really care please document all your variables, and check the 
test workbook which is distributed along with the source, then provide 
your own test cases with sources along with your compelling reason for 
making the change.

Analysing and understanding the changes, implementing them, re-doing all 
the tests and so on is probably, for a non-genius like me, at least 
30-40 hours work. I'd prefer not to do this work unless there's a pretty 
good reason.

About once a year someone joins the list to say what's been done is all 
wrong. (This was me 7 years ago). Each such person has a different idea 
as to why it's all wrong. Frequently it seems to boil down to I used the 
standard CFA options textbook and they read a different one. Nobody 
seems to use these functions (or if they do they're using them with no 
problems). The functions have been in this form for about 7 years. Jody 
Goldberg cast his eye over them before committing them on my behalf, in 
addition to being a vastly better hacker than me he also works in the 
field and they made enough sense for him to commit them as they did to 
me writing them. Changing them breaks any workbook that is using them as 
they are. However this is worth doing if they're calculating wrongly for 
these users.

If they're wrong and nobody uses them there's a fair case for their 
removal from gnumeric.


Kind regards,
Hal