RE: [boost] Re: C++ Standard Library proposal - Math functions forStatistics

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-15 02:02:04

C compatibility is deemed very highly desirable by many, even BS Himself!
Even if a C++ exceptional version is better as well as more Politically Correct.

But there may be more than one way to achieve that, and any case, for most
functions the hard bit is the algorithm, its size, speed, accuracy, accuracy at
limits, and testing.

There seems to an argument that using templates & exceptions will make it less
likely to become a C++ Standard. It may be regrettable but true.

So I would not discourage you at all.  But do look at the prior art first.
Moshier's Cephes is the best C implementation (and best book) I have found (but
unsuitable licence), but there are many contributions in F*****N which actually
work well (and perhaps better).

NIST have an on-going project to update A&S too (but a book, not code).

Paul

PS Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics could indeed usefully be added.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Hubert Holin
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 3:37 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: C++ Standard Library proposal - Math functions
> forStatistics
>
> Somewhere in the E.U., le 14/04/2003
>
>    It's a small world...
>
>       I have just borrowed a copy of Abramowitz & Stegun, as I intended
> to propose to code a few additions to the very few Special Functions
> here at Boost.
>
>       After reading cursorilly your proposal (I'll read it in more
> details later on), I would like to offer the following:
>
> * choice of functions is OK (I'd perhaps add one for Kolmogorov-Smirnov
> statistics)
>
> * real and not complex is OK (the complex case needs more thinking to be
> really usefull)
>
> * overload versus template-based is NOT OK. I strongly believe that the
> benefits of genericity outweight, in this case, compatibility with C; if
> we can have default template arguments which correcpond to the most
> commonly used C flavor, then it would alleviate some of the concerns
> presented by your proposal.
>
>       Should I go on with a few test implementations, or should I not
> bother?
>
>    A bientot
>
>          Hubert Holin