
Boost : 
Subject: Re: [boost] [Math/Special Functions] Is there any interest in the Lambert W function?
From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 20160925 13:11:55
On 25/09/2016 12:27, BalÃ¡zs CzirÃ¡ki wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> I'm working on a C++ implementation of the Lambert W
> (a.k.a. product logarithm or Omega function) and I wanted to ask
> the Boost developer community if there is interest in adding it to the
> library.
>
> The current version can be found on GitHub:
>
> https://github.com/CzB404/lambert_w/
>
> I've successfully tested it with Cygwin GCC v5.4, v6.2
> and with MinGW GCC that is supplied with Code::Blocks,
> and also on Visual Studio 2015.
> A test on a Linux based OS (probably Ubuntu) is also going to happen.
>
> Any suggestions or constructive criticism is welcome.
We have an open bug report for this which I've just updated to point to
your code, plus Thomas Lui's revised version from his thesis:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/11027.
At first glance:
* Your version looks a lot more complex than Thomas', however you
support more used cases than he does.
* Are the only permitted values for k 0 and 1: the two solutions of the
equation? If so it doesn't really make sense to me to have this as a
function parameter in that case, would it not be easier and more
streamlined to have two separate functions for the two solutions?
* Where possible I'd much prefer additions to Boost.Math to be agnostic
of the number type  ie to work with userdefined types such as those
from Boost.Multiprecision. We have some guidance for submissions here:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_61_0/libs/math/doc/html/math_toolkit/special_tut.html
which I hope is a lot easier to follow in practice than it initially
looks: honest ;)
* Given that the real valued functions are rather easy/lightweight to
implement, does it make sense to dispatch to separate real valued and
complex implementations right from the start? If so we have
boost::is_complex.
* I'm rather conflicted about the use of C++14 in the code  I
appreciate it's the current standard, however, given how easy it would
be to support C++03 and the same functionality, I'm not sure what if
anything this gains us?
* I haven't had a chance to test or examine your implementation in
detail, I'm just sort of taking it for granted that it works ;) But yes
there is interest in this function.
Best, John.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk