From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-22 10:03:23
The committee is caught between the desires of users to have everything
they need in the standard library, and the desires of vendors with
resources to be able stay in the business of conforming to the standard.
I think Boost provides a valuable middle ground, where users can create
and share what they need at no cost to vendors.
Some of Boost will go on to be incorporated into the standard, but not
and that is just fine.
On Tuesday, Apr 22, 2003, at 03:05 America/Denver, Paul A. Bristow
> 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
> 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
> pointers and need to get out more ;-)
> Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB UK
> +44 1539 561830 Mobile +44 7714 33 02 04
> Mobile mailto:pabristow_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
> | 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
> | >'special functions' which I believe have even greater practical
> | >(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,
> | 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
> | 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
> | it, but will ask that it be cut down or removed if they find they
> | 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:
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk