Re: Math Functions: Basic building blocks...

From: Hubert HOLIN (Hubert.Holin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-21 15:38:34

Paris (U.E.), le 21/09/2001

        Hi

                I wholehartedly support this initiative! I'll take a look at 
the doc and test files early next week (top to-do along with posting 
review comments on Daryle's gcd/lcm).

                        Hubert Holin
                        Hubert.Holin_at_[hidden]

I am not a mad scientist, I am a mad mathematician!

--- In boost_at_y..., "Eric Ford" <eford_at_m...> wrote:
> > I think a relatively low level templatized interface to the floating
> point mathematical functions provided by the standard C library might
> be a good idea.
> 
> I'd like to see some progress on this front.  I think we should start
> very simply with something that can be used as a part of a more
> powerful mathematical library to come.  For example, presently the
> "special functions" library uses the double version of routines such
> as sqrt, sin, log, rather than a version optimal for the arguments
> type.  I have in mind something that merely chooses the correct
> version of the functions provided by the standard library.  That way
> there's no additional runtime costs and minimal compile time costs. 
> Eventually, I'd like to provide versions which are capable of
> providing some error checking, but I think we should make something
> like this simple library first.  
> 
> I've uploaded a draft of the documentation to
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/standard
> _functions/standard_functions.html
> .  The header file, test program, and test program output can be
> accessed via links for the standard_functions directory in the files
> section.
> 
> If a few people would take a look at it, I'd appreciate it.  One thing
> I know I'll need some help on is making it work on other compilers. 
> When the ridciulous #define
> MY_COMPILER_GCC_296_DOESNT_SUPPORT_THESE_HOW_SHOULD_I_DEAL_WITH_THEM
> is commented out, it compiles and runs fine for me (g++ 2.95 redhat
> linux 6.2 i386).  If people with other compilers could verify that all
> the functions used with that commented out work for their compiler,
> that would be appreciated.  Also, I imagine some compilers could
> provide some of these functions.  If anyone wants to let me know which
> compilers support which, that could be useful.  I'm not sure whether
> it would be better to only provide what nearly all compilers support
> or to provide as much as possible on each compiler.  
> 
> Thanks,
> E