Talk:Clamp (function)

bp 07:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

Are six implementations on top of pseudo-code necessary for such a simple function? SchighSchagh (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, there wasn't an 8051 assembler example ... Deleted all but the pseudo-code. Any programmer who can't figure out how to implement the pseudo-code in his/her preferred language shouldn't be programming.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Name of article

Shouldn't this be Clamping (Programming) or something like that? clamp functions certainly aren't restricted to graphics-related use, and most of this article is nothing to do with graphics. 212.44.29.52 (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Name of article 2

I'd go with "Clamping (function misnomers)" or put it under a "List of misused English words".

What's wrong with it ? Well...

1.There is one solitary example given of it's use for the code/functionality specified. This does not qualify it as an industry or subject term, particularly when it is a misnomer. Essentially, one individual working on one (albeit significant) library made a mistake/had an off day and now the entire world is expected to assign a confusing, misleading meaning to an otherwise perfectly good word.

2.The code is so trivial as to not warrant a term.

3.For a function "restricting" a value to a range (which is what the listed code does), "limit","restrict","confine","regulate","constrain","govern" and "restrain" would all be reasonable and intuitive choices. I'm sure there are more. "Clamp" is a very bad choice: it not only does not describe what the function does, it describes something the function does not do (special case excepted).

From a judgement by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (on another topic...obviously): "for a language to remain viable, words must have readily discernible meanings." and here the article's author is trying to assign a meaning at odds with the generally accepted meaning i.e. they are trying to have it relate to a "range" when it properly relates to a fixed point.

The only case for keeping it as a wikipaedia entry at all is to record that the usage suggested is a consequence of a poor choice, currently restricted to one specific area of computing and should not be encouraged to spread further bp 06:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC). To admit it as a legitimate term will encourage its use when it would be better that the library's authors/maintainers recognise their mistake, deprecate the function and refactor with one of the alternative names given above. bp 06:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobpower67 (talk • contribs)