From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-25 04:13:24
Sadly, I doubt if it would because of the difficulty of achieving long double
accuracy for some functions, especially at some reasonable speed. double is
enough for most practical purposes, and is hard enough to approach using 64-bit
processing, all most people have.
Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB UK
+44 1539 561830 Mobile +44 7714 33 02 04
| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Daryle Walker
| Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 7:19 AM
| To: Boost
| Subject: [boost] Re: C++ Standard Library proposal - Math functions
| On Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at 9:21 AM, 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.
| If we start with just one version, wouldn't a "long double" version be
| the best choice. That way, the "float" and "double" users can get
| answers with quick & dirty conversions.
| Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk