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

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-16 14:18:18

I don't doubt you, but others clearly are unconvinced that it is important.

To some extent, while I am convinved by your argument, pragmatically it is much
more important to have some standard and some implementation.  If feel strongly
that much statistical (and other) calculations are being avoided because
portable standards and implementations are lacking in C and C++.  Indeed other
tools (Excel, VB, MathCAD, Matlab, Mathmetica ...) are being used instead.

Ultimately I see it as mainly a packaging problem - the underlying algorithm and
heart of the code is the same.

Can Boost help by providing two versions of some functions and see which turn
out to be preferred (especially by C++ users)?

Is there still a problem if we assume 'strict' compilation, and rely on warnings
that we are doing something which may cause surprises?

Paul

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 Gabriel Dos Reis
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 12:04 AM
> To: Boost mailing list
> Subject: Re: [boost] Re: C++ Standard Library proposal - Math
> functionsforStatistics
>
>
> "Paul A. Bristow" <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> | C compatibility is deemed very highly desirable by many, even BS Himself!
>
> Certainly, many people are for C-compatibility -- including myself.
> But the argument given in the proposal is bogus.
>
> | Even if a C++ exceptional version is better as well as more
> Politically Correct.
>
> Well, as close as possible to C, but not closer.  If C-compatibility
> means broken semamtics then I prefer we sacrify C-compatibility.
>
> C-compatibility is not a goal in itself.
>
> [...]
>
> | 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.
>
> I showed why the overloading argument is broken.
>
> -- Gaby
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
>