Re: opt_bs bug?

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,

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]