
Boost : 
From: Markus Werle (numerical.simulation_at_[hidden])
Date: 20070108 11:31:11
John Maddock <john <at> johnmaddock.co.uk> writes:
>
> The "Math Toolkit" has now matured to the point where Paul Bristow and I
> would like to ask for a formal review.
Some comments before the review begins (If you allow):
In the docs sometimes you have formulations like e.g.
"Returns the cubed root of x.". For native speakers this may be no problem,
but sqrt(x)^3 may be easier to catch for the rest of us.
Also I dislike: "The definition used here is that used by Wolfram MathWorld"
since by this the docs are neither selfcontained nor robust against
some idiot buying and shutting down the cited sites. I am sure, even wikipedia
will vanish some day due to some more internet restrictions evolved from the
pseudowar against terror (alias war against freedom) or some idiot holding a
software patent affecting the whole community.
So rather include the full text from Wikipedia than hope it is there when my
children read your docs. I learned it the hard way: data persistence is
unavailable in the w^3.
Citing papers is OK, but it takes a few thousand dollars to get them all I
guess. So adding an outline of the algorithm would be nice for all functions
(though saying what you use is GoodStuff(TM), too).
Since I got really excited about gamma functions (I need them and had hard times
evaluating exact solutions from continuum mechanics):
The Definition section needs some rework and the warnings about the different
definitions will not help much in this form (at least for me, the stupid one)
I see no connection between \Int R(t, s) dt and the definitions F, E and \Pi so
here again the docs are a little bit confusing and the information about gamma
function definitions and what Legendre found out will not enter my brain without
further information from other sources which I find odd.
OTOH given these function on a silver tablet I'd like to say:
Thank You!
What I also dislike is the existence of default typedefs for double
(students_t et al.). This is unnecessary and makes double a special type
which it is not.
I'd vote for removing those from the boost version of this due to the asymmetry
it produces.
regards,
Markus
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk