Re: Future directions for Boost.Math and Boost.Multiprecision

From: Christopher Kormanyos (e_float_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-01-16 22:01:30

  >>Â If you (or your friends and colleagues) have ideas for mathy>> things like 'special' functions, statistical distributions, tools>> like integration, curve fitting, signal processing
> I think it may be worth to talk about how real could integrate> with math before real is proposed for review.
One possibility is to wrap the UDT as a backend typefor Boost.Multiprecision. Then that wrapped type would fulfillthe formal requirements for interoperability withBoost.Math, while the front end remains unchanged.
There might be problems or successesor whatever with overflow, underflow, performance,range of applicabilty, etc. But tht is a good way tointerface to Boost.Math. If this makes sense in thiscase, I do not know. But it is an option to think about.
Kind regards, Chris

    On Thursday, January 16, 2020, 2:49:25 PM GMT+1, Damian Vicino via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:  
 
 On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 07:57 Paul A Bristow via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Trying to obtain some user (and potential user) feedback, and guidance on
> future
> work,
>
> a discussion at  https://github.com/boostorg/math/issues/303   has been
> started.
>
> If you (or your friends and colleagues) have ideas for mathy things like
> 'special' functions, statistical distributions, tools like integration,
> curve
> fitting, signal processing ... that the current libraries do not meet,
> please
> feel free to contribute to this wish-list collection of ideas.
>

I think it may be worth to talk about how real could integrate with math
before real is proposed for review.

https://github.com/BoostGSoC19/Real

>

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost