Re: [boost] [math toolkit] Formal Review today, April 11, through April 20

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-26 14:23:26

>-----Original Message-----
>From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of John Phillips
>Sent: 25 April 2007 16:30
>To: boost_at_[hidden]
>Subject: Re: [boost] [math toolkit] Formal Review today, April 
>11, through April 20

>> 	. 	What is your evaluation of the documentation?

> Again, my only issues are nits.

> The documentation is huge and thorough. It almost forms a framework 
> for a couple of texts. There are some minor editing issues,

Since my most significant contribution has probably been 'nit-nurse',
I'd be grateful for a detailed list of nitlets that you noted in reading,
or even what you vaguely remember being wrong

- I've read it enough times for my eyes to glaze over ;-)
 
>but so far I have only found one relatively major one (in the PDF, at 
>least). In the 
>introduction you give a list of the included special functions that is 
>very much shorter than the real list.

As John has noted, we have been adding to the code (for example the Pareto distribution as requested)
but the documentation hasn't quite kept up.

When we've got a list of minor nits to squash, we will have a fuller update.  (The production of the pdf from Quickbook is harder
than the html - indeed the whole process isn't as smooth as one would like, and we'd like the graphs to be in SVG rather than jpegs,
and to use MathML for equations etc). 

We'd also like to add more examples - user contributions will be most welcome.

Paul

---
Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone] & SMS, Mobile [phone] & SMS
pbristow_at_[hidden]