Re: [boost] C++ Standard Library proposal - Math functions for Statistics

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-18 16:20:06

At 03:42 PM 4/9/2003, Paul A. Bristow wrote:

 >Following discussions with Walter Brown, who made a previous proposal for 

 >some math functions (adding to the C99 functions proposed by P J 
Plauger),
 >I have prepared a draft of a new proposal to add a good number of other
 >'special functions' which I believe have even greater practical utility
 >(but perhaps more difficulty in implementation).

At the committee meeting last week, Walter's special functions proposal was 
controversial. Not because it wasn't a carefully crafted proposal, but 
because of the perceived implementation difficulty compared to the 
relatively small percentage of C++ users who would benefit. It was 
suggested that Boost was a better place for special functions than the 
standard library.

While Walter's special functions proposal was accepted, it ran into 
about  as much flack as a proposal can get and still be accepted. One or 
two implementors said they were in favor of it, and will try to implement 
it, but will ask that it be cut down or removed if they find they can't 
implement it in a reasonable amount of time.

So where does that leave "Math functions for Statistics"? My guess is that 
you should concentrate on Boost for now, as trying to convince the 
committee to consider yet more special functions isn't likely to be 
rewarding at least in the short term.

--Beman