BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE和BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION之间的区别？ [英] Difference between BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE and BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION?

问题描述

谁能描述 BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE 之间的行为差​​异和 BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION ？ <一href=\"http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1%5F39%5F0/libs/test/doc/html/utf/testing-tools/reference.html\">The文档意味着这两个宏对待他们的第三个参数完全相同，这使我怀疑的文件是错误的。

Can anyone describe the difference in behavior between BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE and BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION? The documentation implies the that both macros treat their third parameter identically, which makes me suspect the documentation is wrong.

在特别 BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION 给我一些奇怪的妆效：

In particular, BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION gives me some odd looking results:

error in "...": difference between *expected{0} and *actual{-1.7763568394002506e-16} exceeds 9.9999999999999995e-07

是否有疑难杂症，因为我想到一个零的结果？我没有在通过底层宏观声明读了成功。请注意 BOOST_CHECK_SMALL 是不适合我的用例（一个线性代数操作后，比较两个向量）。

Is there a gotcha because I expect a zero result? I've not been successful at reading through the underlying macro declarations. Please note BOOST_CHECK_SMALL isn't appropriate for my use case (comparing two vectors after a linear algebra operation).

推荐答案

据这个讨论，一（ BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE ）把pssing百分比第三个参数为前$ p $，而其他（ BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION ）会将其作为前pressing一小部分。因此，0.01的第一应相当于在第二0.0001。

According to this discussion, one (BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE) treats the third parameter as expressing a percent, while the other (BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION) treats it as expressing a fraction. So, .01 in the first should be equivalent to .0001 in the second.

不能确定，说明你的问题 - 你得到与 BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE 同样奇怪的结果呢？我也不会感到震惊，如果0导致的一个问题 - 但我没有与宏的第一手经验。

Not certain if that explains your problem -- do you get the same odd result with BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE? I wouldn't be shocked if the 0 caused an issue -- but I don't have first hand experience with the macros.

这篇关于BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE和BOOST_CHECK_CLOSE_FRACTION之间的区别？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！