Re: [boost] Math functions - requirements 'spec'

From: Matt Austern (austern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-05 13:22:26

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:35:50 -0000, Paul A Bristow
<pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Following the view of C and C++ Working groups at Redmond
> that a working implementation of my proposal for math functions
> was a necessary condition for consideration for a TR-2 standard,

I wasn't there for the discussion at the C standardization committee
meeting, but I was there for the discussion in the C++ library working
group.  My interpretation of the discussion wasn't that a working
implementation was necessary, but that the working group was skeptical
about this proposal, period.

Yes, the main reason for skepticism was that the implemention
effort/user benefit ratio was perceived to be too large.  So yes, an
implementation might be one of the things that would help to change
some people's minds.  But if that's the goal you're setting yourself
for an implementation, then it dictates the kind of work you'll need
to do: you'll need to show that it's possible to produce a high
quality implementation (let's say: maximum error of at most a few ulps
for the entire range of every function) without heroic effort. I know
that may seem like a tall order, but if your goal is to change the
committees' minds then you need to understand the reasons people
thought what they did.

              --Matt