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

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-22 04:05:58

I accept your advice on strategy on this

 - but absolutely cannot accept that the number of C++ users will be small.  It
certainly should not be - even non-rocket science statistics requires these
functions.  Even Excel provides them - as well as plenty of proper math and
stats packages!

If the committee doesn't see this, they have been doing too many smart/dumb
pointers and need to get out more ;-)

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 Beman Dawes
| Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 10:20 PM
| To: Boost mailing list; Boost
| Subject: Re: [boost] C++ Standard Library proposal - Math functions for
| Statistics
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
|
|