Hello Alik,
> Now “a” does not have upper bound, that’s why on using iterative algorithm with a >= 10000 program will stuck on
infiniteloop because of following line of code:
> double b = pow(2.0, s - 1.0);
> Because after overflow “b” becomes “+Inf”.
Yep, overflow can happen.
> So should upper bound for “a" be set?
Yes, I agree. a >= 10000 does not make much sense... If you want uniform
you should use random(), not call random_zipfian with a = 10000. Basically
it suggests that too large values of "a" should be rejected. Not sure
where to put the limit, though.
> Should I mention in docs that there are two algorithms are used
> depending on values of a(s/theta)?
Yes, as a general principle I think that the documentation should reflect
the implementation.
> In attaching patch, I have added computeIterativeZipfian method and it’s
> usage in getZipfianRand. Is it better to move code of computing via
> cache to new method, so that getZipfianRand will contain only 2
> computeXXXZipfian method calls?
I have not looked in detail, but from what you say I would agree that the
implementation should be symmetric, so having one function calling one
method or the other sounds good.
--
Fabien.
