From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-23 15:15:28
"Paul A. Bristow" <boost_at_[hidden]> writes:
| 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.
Being one of the persons who raised the accuracy issue, I think I have
to say why.
The proposed mathematical functions are not there just for selling
compilers. They are there to serve *practical* purposes. If there is
no accuracy guarantee, they don't worth to have -- they are already so
specialized. LIA has already set framework for those things. Any
serious proposal to include such specialized functions need to pay
attention to those things.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk