Re: [boost] Review Request: Statistical Distributions and Mathematical Special Functions

From: Markus Werle (numerical.simulation_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-08 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 self-contained 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 
pseudo-war 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