From: Eric Ford (eford_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-05 17:10:30
> I've perused these briefly and declare I am completely
At least part of that is my fault. Obviously my current versions
could use some major help in many regards, starting with
documentation. I'm hoping I (or someone else :)) can simplify what
can be simplied. Because they still need a fair bit of generalization
to really be useful.
> My real needs (and those wanting to do some stats) are simpler:
I don't mean to discourage you. But if this is all you want, you
might want to consider just using routines someone else has already
made avaliable. I'd love it if someone would take the initiative to
put together a set of mathematical functions with an interface and
implementation that is typical of boost's quality. However, that will
be a fair bit of work.
Still, if someone would coordinate the effort of designing and
agreeing on an interface, I think that would be a real contribution.
Then, someone could work on putting together a strawman implementation
that had some basic functions, but issued lots of error messages when
you tried to use something theoretically avaliable in the interface,
but not implemented yet. Then people would likely start contributing
routines to fill what was missing.
Good luck and lots of encouragement,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk