
Boost : 
From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 20020907 05:13:20
The drawback of this is that in practice you only need sparse handful of
intervals for significands numeric_limits<>::digits
= 23, 24, 32, 53, 64, 80, 106, 112, 128 perhaps.
So a switch, and perhaps some default, as Sylvain Pion suggested is quite
adequate.
Paul
> Original Message
> From: boostbounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boostbounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Herve Bronnimann
> Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 11:11 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review for Interval Library getting
> intervalsof constants
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:39:57PM 0400, Sylvain Pion wrote:
> > The naive approach (which I guess is what you had in mind) is
> to use a RUNTIME
> > algorithm, and make it dump enough precision in decimal (e.g.
> Maple), and just
> > use this.
> > But this DOES NOT work : it is not reliable enough given the precise
> > constraints that I have given.
> > Read again my quote of the C++ standard from [2.13.3.1].
> > The key remark in this paragraph is that if the decimal scaled
> value is NOT
> > representable (which is what you highly probably get with the
> naive approach),
> > then the necessary rounding which is done by the compiler at
> compiletime is
> > implementationdefined. So, as I want to be sure of the
> correct FP values that
> > I get, I need to fall back on a decimal value which is EXACTLY
> representable
> > in the compiler's FP format (which I can know via
> numeric_limits::digits and
> > radix). Which is what led me to my proposal : testing in a
> compiletime switch
> > (several ?: ) using numeric_limits::digits (and this method
> should also switch
> > on radix to be complete).
>
> Just occured to me: If you want to take advantage of compiletime,
> template arguments of the form <unsigned int> would work, and
> specializations for various ints would give you the desired rounding.
>
> Example (the constants are bogus, but you'll get my point):
>
> template <unsigned int decimal_precision>
> struct interval_pi {
> static const double lower = 3; // default version
> static const double upper = 4;
> };
>
> #define BOOST_INTERVAL_SPECIALIZE_PI_CONSTANT(n, l, u) \
> template <> struct interval_pi<n> { \
> static const double lower = l; \
> static const double upper = u; \
> }
>
> BOOST_INTERVAL_SPECIALIZE_PI_CONSTANT(1, 3.1 , 3.2
> );
> BOOST_INTERVAL_SPECIALIZE_PI_CONSTANT(2, 3.14 ,
> 3.15 );
> BOOST_INTERVAL_SPECIALIZE_PI_CONSTANT(3, 3.141 ,
> 3.142 );
> BOOST_INTERVAL_SPECIALIZE_PI_CONSTANT(4, 3.1415 ,
> 3.1416 );
> BOOST_INTERVAL_SPECIALIZE_PI_CONSTANT(5, 3.14159 ,
> 3.14160 );
> BOOST_INTERVAL_SPECIALIZE_PI_CONSTANT(6, 3.1415926 ,
> 3.1415927 );
> BOOST_INTERVAL_SPECIALIZE_PI_CONSTANT(7, 3.14159265 ,
> 3.14159266 );
> BOOST_INTERVAL_SPECIALIZE_PI_CONSTANT(8, 3.141592653 ,
> 3.141592654 );
> BOOST_INTERVAL_SPECIALIZE_PI_CONSTANT(9, 3.1415926535 ,
> 3.1415926536 );
>
> std::cout << interval_pi<7>::lower << std::endl;
>
> You can go on to provide all the (precomputed) precisions ever needed by
> users. It's a little less flexible than switches ( ? : ) but it's
> perhaps more readable... ?
> 
> Herve'
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk