From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-12 12:09:36
Paul A Bristow wrote:
>> Following the successful review of the math-toolkit of special
>> functions and
>> statistical distributions the main feature request was for a
>> better way of
>> customising the library: both for choosing between precision vs speed
>> tradeoffs, and for determining how errors are best handled. I've
>> been experimenting with various policy-based interfaced based on
>> and I think I now have something useable, so I'd like to know
>> what people
> This all looks *very* (even excessively!) cool, and has real
> practical value.
> But it is more complicated - though most people just use the default
> defaults ;-)
> I see the error messages as being *really* important, so some other
> mechanism than BOOST_CURRENT_FUNCTION must be devised to avoid the
> obfuscating pages added by MPL. More MPL ;-)
Yep, we could just specify the function name manually "boost::math::tgamma"
etc, I guess we could maybe even use Boost.Format to insert the template
type - I think all the error handlers get passed that type separately
anyway - I'll have to check that.
> Finally, I wonder what the effect on the C++ ISO Standards process
> will be? Will WG21 take fright? Do we care?
Not at present :-)
> PS It also has a cost of some hacking hours ;-)
I know :-(
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