From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-27 05:07:16
John Phillips wrote:
> Sorry for miss-naming and calling the Math Toolkit by the incorrect
No worries :-)
> but the basis for my concern that they will be merged is
> the review announcement, where John Maddock says:
The intention (at least on my part) is to merge the implementations so that
we don't end up with two different versions(!), and so that we get the best
of both worlds: the genericity of the current Boost.Math version (works to a
degree with numbers represented as class types), and the performance of
Johan's version for the builtin floating point types.
How the library and documentation should be structured is a whole other
issue - thanks for raising this - I think you're correct that these
utilities should be easy to find and at the very least flagged up on the
library index page.
I'm open to suggestions as to whether that means separate documentation and
organisation, or just a separate index entry leading to the sub-TOC for
fpclassify etc. There are pro's and cons either way, so I'm easy I guess.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk