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

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-07 06:13:27

"Paul A Bristow" <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:E1CPpK5-00034X-Vt_at_he204war.uk.vianw.net...
| | [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Thorsten Ottosen

| | why do you want to implement it for C also?
|
| because I have been recommended to present follow the example of C99 math
| functions,
| which are applicable to both C and C++.  And I have therefore
| made a proposal to both C and C++ WGs

that seem reasonable. However, would it not be possible to implement the C
interface  in terms of the templated C++
implementation?

| | | 6  Should I assume IEEE 754 compliance and signal #error
| | "Only works with IEEE compliant compilers"?
| |
| | but this is not guaranteed by the standard, is it?
|
| No, but tons of code assumes this, and portable ways of checking for isnan
| and is finite are essential.
|
| So new question:  is it OK if I assume C99 additions (which include these)?

I don't have a good answer to this. Do all reasonable desctop compilers
actually
go for IEEE 754?

Why can't you use std::numeric_limits<F>::is_nan() etc for C++ ?

| | good to see you working on this :-)
|  -Thorsten
|
| I only said I was thinking about it - looks VERY tedious and messy,
| even assuming the underlying code is fine.  There are dozens of functions
| ...
| Never mind proper testing ...
|
| You will understand that I don't want to find that reviewers suddenly have
| other new ideas.

yeah, I understand.

I would like to say, that even though we don't get the functions into the
standard, I think a good boost version
will become a significant benefit to the community.

-Thorsten