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

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-23 13:58:49

Indeed, I doubt if long double is practically useful for many applications -
even 16 decimal place 64-bit double will be impracticable on MSVC where there
isn't really a long double (you may need to use 80-bit calculations to get a
64-bit accuracy result).

But I don't believe that this is a problem - exp, sin etc don't really work for
long double on MSVC either! And many implementations are not fully accurate -
nor would one necessarily want to wait while they calculate to full accuracy.

The Standard does not, and should not, make any requirements about accuracy,
memory size or speed.

So I feel they are panicing a bit.

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: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 12:17 PM
| To: Boost mailing list
| Subject: RE: [boost] C++ Standard Library proposal - Math functions
| forStatistics
|
|
| At 04:21 AM 4/23/2003, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
|
|  >I feel Boost can also help by providing just one working implementation,
|  >even if just at 32-bit float accuracy, so any vendor who doesn't feel
|  >willing or able to provide a better one can still offer the Boost one
|  >and claim compliance.
|
| What worried the vendors wasn't the float accuracy, but the long double
| accuracy.
|
| One particular worry was that the amount of machine time required would be
| on the order of months.
|
| --Beman
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
|
|