Boost logo

Boost :

From: brianjparker_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-10-21 22:57:55

--- In boost_at_y..., Daryle Walker <darylew_at_m...> wrote:
> on 10/21/01 12:42 AM, Brian Parker at brianjparker_at_h... wrote:
> [SNIP]
> > Looks good. I am undecided which is the best interface though- to
> > specify the error bound by passing in the maximum denominator as
> > the above code, or passing in the relative error as in the Netlib
> > code.
> Maybe we should have both.

Yes, that is my conclusion as well. It may be possible to overload
the function based on the error term type- double or float for
relative error and integer for max. denominator, although this may be
too fragile and separate function names may be better.

An advantage of the relative error approach is that a default small
value close to the epsilon of the floating point representation could
be specified, so that the error argument could be ignored in many

Also, as was pointed out in a previous posting, the Netlib code needs
to have two defines updated for IEEE754 floating point- I will look
into this in the future.

,Brian Parker.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at