RE: [boost] C++ committee actions - More statistical math functions?

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-05 17:30:02

Thanks for this encouragement.

I look forward to learning the details of Walter's proposals as accepted.

However the meat of the algorithms (especially the dreaded incomplete beta
function) is beyond my expertise, but I'll see if I can get permission to re-use
existing work. I might be willing to 'repackage' existing C algorithms.

Testing them is also a significant issue as they won't be 'fully' accurate even
as much as exp, log, pow etc are (only a few bits 'wrong').  (Did the issue of
testing the accuracy of pow, exp, log, sin, cos - and Walter's functions come
up?)

But I'd be happier with some support from other Boosters.  Surely someone wants
to be able to calculate the probability of Student's t using C++?

Paul

Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]   Mobile [phone]
mailto:pbristow_at_[hidden]

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Beman Dawes
| Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 8:39 PM
| To: Boost mailing list
| Subject: RE: [boost] C++ committee actions - More statistical math
| functions?
|
|
| At 01:09 PM 11/5/2003, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
|
|  >Is now the time to (re-)start discussing MORE 'special functions' like
| the
|  >ones that I prepared (but did not submit) a proposal for 'math function
|  >essential for statistics' ?
|  >
|  >My previous proposal and a brief introduction attached.
|  >
|  >One possible starter might be to approach Stephen Moshier, author of a
|  >popular C library which does most of the numerical work, to get his
|  >permission to re-skin his code - mainly renaming functions to conform
|  >to std conventions. However, if the C men are going to use it, I am
|  >unclear of the requirements to get compatibility.
|  >
|  >Walter Brown was very keen not to try to introduce too much in his choice
|
|  >of functions (flawed IMHO) for fear of frightening the vendors who would
|  >frighten the TR.  If we have at least a Boost free-issue library, neither
|  >group need have fear, but vendors would be free to improve on Moshier's
|  >code if they can/wish.
|  >
|  >Views on if and how to progress this?
|
| Design the details of a Boost library to mesh with the standard library TR
| special functions (including changes made last week, and any future
| tweaks.)  Then submit it to Boost. I really don't see any other choice at
| the moment.
|
| One of the reasons Walter's proposal was accepted by the LWG was that he
| has been patiently working with the LWG for several years, building support
| for numeric computing needs, and assuring that there were people available
| to deal with numerics issues as they arose. Remember the committee's
| unhappy experience with valarray, where the numerics people proposed
| something and then disappeared, leaving the committee with no numerics
| people to deal with the fallout. People who think C++ needs more numerics
| library components need to seriously consider joining the committee. Walter
| Brown and Marc Paterno have done a first class job of getting numerics
| issues on the radar screen, but they are only two people. Even one more
| numericist would help push that agenda.
|
| --Beman
|
| _______________________________________________
| Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
|
|