From: boost (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-29 01:59:30
On Friday 29 June 2001 06:29, Daryle Walker wrote:
> on 6/28/01 9:35 PM, Hubert HOLIN at Hubert.Holin_at_[hidden] wrote:
> > This namespace would contain atanh, sinc and sinhc, and would
> > welcome other such functions. It would also enable one to have,
> > perhaps, templated sin, cos and friend functions, which have non-
> > templated forms in the standard, and for which implementations may have
> > more efficient forms in the float (say) case, under another name...
> I don't think we need this. Who's to say what's "special"? It's too
> arbitrary. For instance, since sin, cos, tan, atan, sinh, and cosh are
> already "normal" math functions, why shouldn't atanh also be a "normal"
> math function? There wouldn't be a connecting domain for the namespace's
> members. Why have a special namespace for a certain hodgepodge subset of
> math functions within a namespace already made for a hodgepodge of math
> functions and classes? We shouldn't add levels unnecessarily.
I agree., besides
atanh(z) == - \imath arctan( \imath z) ,
so atanh() is definitly a 'normal function', if atan() is.
And where to put the Bessel function, they 're 'normally' on unix.
And I have friends claiming that hypergeomatric functions are very normal... .
So boost::math should be sufficient.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk