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

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

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 Daryle Walker
| Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 7:19 AM
| To: Boost
| Subject: [boost] Re: C++ Standard Library proposal - Math functions
| forStatistics
|
|
| 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.
|
| Daryle
|
| _______________________________________________
| Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
|
|