From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-08 11:17:25
Matthias Schabel wrote:
>> If it is purely implementation, it might make sense to have a 3-stage
>> review, where each component is focussed on. That might better
>> reviews from those with knowledge of one or two domains, but not the
>> whole system.
> I need to look at the code in more detail, but my suspicion is that
> the dependencies
> are something like this :
> special functions depend on utilities
> statistical distributions depend on utilities and special functions
Yes, that's basically the way it goes.
> If this is the case, we ought to be able to review the statistical
> distributions portion
> of the code independently, regarding the special functions and
> utilities as
> implementation details, then consider the special functions as a
> separate library,
> with utilities as an implementation detail, then finally the
> utilities themselves...
> Having separate boost::math::statistics,
> boost::math::special_functions, and
> boost::math::statistics::distributions namespaces might help to
> things a bit more, too...
Special functions are currently in boost::math (this is inherited from the
existing special functions that are in that namespace), distributions in
boost::math::distributions, and the tools in boost::math::tools. So there
is some separation already, but namespaces will no doubt get talked about at
the review :-)
I guess from an end user POV the tools part is the least important, while
special functions are important BTW because we can't get a complete
Boost.TR1 implementation without them.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk