From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-03 05:57:27
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hubert HOLIN [mailto:Hubert.Holin_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:36 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] boost subnamespaces proposal.
> I propose the creation of namespace ::boost::math .
I agree with this.
> I propose the creation of namespace
> ::boost::math::special_functions .
I'm not clear on the pros and cons of subdividing the space for constants,
functions, nions and ???
There seem to be some subtle things here, especially for templated things.
So I think sticking to one subdivision for a start seems prudent - I suspect
it is easier to add more subdivisions than backtrack?
PS I have not given up with the collection of constants. Concluding that
one size doesn;t fit all, I plan to create ALL the packaging types
automatically and, with Boosters support, see which prove useful and
popular. I have partly been waiting for the dust to settle on the namespace
PPS I still feel that we should be able to offer more math functions,
especially the stats essentials like normal, F, chisq, Poisson
distributions. I feel that the code is OK, but needs santitising for C++,
BUT needs ACM to give permission to agree that the final product can be
Anyone any contacts or suggestions for following this up?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk