31–40 of 325 posts
Why is everybody else suggesting things like 'accuracy', and 'between_0_1" when there exists an actual term: "unit interval" (the top answer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_interval#:~:text=In%20mat... If you google accuracy, you'll get the noun. If you use a made up term, it'll probably return useless results.
I'd personally go with "percent", but because there's so many correct options, it shouldn't matter as long as it's consistent in the code base. Otherwise it just becomes bike-shedding bait.
Right but it’s specifically not, and liable to make people think “3” is an acceptable input
Ex. 50% of 12 marbles is 6 (*.5, 50%).
But just looking at all the different answers in the comments here means there's no consensus on a "right" way. Hence bike shedding. A decent code base should be consistent so it can focus on more important things.
Isn't that simply a decimal fraction? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraction#Decimal_fractions_and...
Why is everybody else suggesting things like 'accuracy', and 'between_0_1" when there exists an actual term: "unit interval" (the top answer) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_interval#:~:text=In%20mat... If you google accuracy, you'll get the noun. If you use a made up term, it'll probably return useless results.
Unit interval is the interval between 0 and 1. We need a word for a value within that interval.
"Normalized". That's what we call data that have been scaled to fit on a tidy axis.
Normalized could also imply demeaned.
Personally if I saw normalised I would assume scaled by a constant, not offset (as in subtraction).
(A unit interval is the set [0, 1], whereas the asker wants to know a name for an element of it.)
I would actually call this a bit of an antipattern. `accuracy` seems fine to me -- although a more descriptive function name than `FuncName` might suggest a better parameter name as well. Digging through the dictionary to find the perfect word means that whoever reads this code is likely going to have to do the same -- why would you ask them to do that? If you aren't referring to a common mathematical or physical con…
“mantissa” ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_logarithm#Mantissa_and_... ) comes close, but excludes 1. IEEE 754 sort-of has that as a part of a float, too ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significand ), and people use the term “mantissa” for it, but it has to special-case 0. ⇒ barring better suggestions, I think I would stretch the definition of mantissa a bit further.
log(120) = log(1.2 × 10²) = 2.079,
And really one mantissa is just the log of the other.