
Boost : 
Subject: Re: [boost] [math] & [random] distribution object compatibility
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 20140414 13:46:02
> Original Message
> From: Boost [mailto:boostbounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Thijs van den
> Berg
> Sent: 13 April 2014 19:46
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [math] & [random] distribution object compatibility
>
>
> > AMDG
> >
> > On 04/13/2014 07:36 AM, Thijs van den Berg wrote:
> >> Boost [random] has probability distribution objects for drawing random
samples
> of those distributions. Boost [math] also has probability distributions, those
provide
> free functions for computing properties of the distributions, like mean, pdf
etc.
> >>
> >> I like the free function design of math variant e.g. it uses
pdf(distribution,x) and I
> was wondering why this hasn't been adopt in C++11 for <random>? To me a free
> function syntax like random(distribution,engine) would make sense. It would
align
> with the fact that C++11 has added begin(container) and end(container) free
> functions.
> >>
> >> I think it's a bit inconvenient to have two libs that both contain
probability
> distributions.
Indeed  but the requirements are quite different.
Boost.Math aims to be accurate (and with extension to use Boost.Multiprecision
and <cstdfloat> , very, very accurate).
Boost.Random must be very fast, but need not be accurate  indeed it may be
rather inaccurate?
So I doubt if changing either is a good idea.
(And anyway they are by different authors developed at different times  so NIH
probably applies).
Paul
 Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal UK LA8 8AB +44 01539 561830
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk