RE: [boost] Re: C++ Standard Library proposal - MathfunctionsforStatistics

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-16 03:54:58

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Powell, Gary
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 4:23 PM
> To: Boost mailing list
> Subject: RE: [boost] Re: C++ Standard Library proposal -
> Math functions for Statistics

> Here is my take on the committee discussion on Walter's additions,
> "special fns" which included a number of Bessel functions:

Thanks for this inside view of the standards process, of which I am sure I not
the only one in some ignorance.

The process seems entirely reasonable.  I conclude that experimenting with Boost
implementations (plural) is the first step in the process.

If a Boost implementation shows feasability and usefulness, then it will be
valuable.  If commercial vendors produce different implementations - faster,
smaller, more accurate etc then they will sell. But whereas the application of a
32-bit float and 64-bit double representations will, I predict, be widespread,
the 80 or 128-bit long double version will be appeal more esoteric audience.
But to conform to a standard, one only needs to provide some modestly accurate
result, not necessarily an ultimately accurate one. (Remember, the existing
Standards make no requirements on accuracy for exp, log, sin etc!  And nor
should they, in my view, - but they should encourage documentation of accuracy.)

Hubert Holin Somewhere in the E.U., le 15/04/2003 ecrit

> Discouraging me is another matter. Why should I go ahead with an
> implementation? If there is not the remotest possibility of it being
> standardized, and even worse if it could hamper standardization of
> usefull tools, there would be no point in going forward. There is no
> need for a proof-of-concept if it is known the concept is already
> dismissed. If there is standardization aroud C-like libraries, the
> commercial outfits will see to it that there are implementations, which
> would most likely not be based on mine. As for the free platforms, what
> benefit would they derive from implementations I would propose, if they
> knew it would not be standard (and most likely not complete before a
> long time, as I can only implement so many functions in my vanishing
> spare time, and I certainly lack the perpective a full academic team
> could provide)? Would anybody find that work usefull?
>
> So, again I must ask, is someone interested in what I could put
> forward, or should I just forget it all?

Bon courage!

I am interested, and anyone who is working with measurements should be.

You can't even tell if two means are different without Student's t!

(Anyone who doubts the usefulness of that should get out more!)

Even if your implementation is not the ultimate in anything, it will be useful
for people to try to judge the relative merits of packaging and using
templates/exceptions, or not, or both C and C++ styles.  I don't think we have
explored this for real - and surely Boost is the place to do this?

Paul

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