RE: [boost] Re: Math Functions

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-11 08:47:21

I've now studied this a bit more carefully.

I'm still daunted by the depth of templating,
but I can see what you are trying to achieve.

I see some compile-time costs as well, (like SIunits)
but the run-time cost looks bearable (in comparison
with the overall computation required by many of the
functions).

The whole thing looks a bit daunting, but important
to do the many jobs where you would have to output
intermediate results into a math tool like Maple,
to get a math function, and then suck results back in
- clearly impractical and too slow to be useful.

It seems that your interface may avoid raising
hurdles for the naive user who expects only
        double function(double);
but I think some more examples would be reassuring,
and I'll try to propose some for your 'treatment'.

Paul

Dr Paul A Bristow, hetp Chromatography
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, Cumbria
LA8 8AB      UK
[phone]
Mobile [phone]
mailto:pbristow_at_[hidden]
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Ford [mailto:eford_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 11:52 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: Math Functions
> 
> 
> In case anyone has downloaded my code, but not looked at it much, I've
> revised the code at
> http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~eford/math/interface/ .