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
>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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk