From: Damian Vicino (damian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-09 02:27:16
El sÃ¡b., 5 sept. 2020 a las 12:45, Paul A Bristow via Boost (<
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Boost <boost-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of Kostas
> Savvidis via Boost
> > Sent: 5 September 2020 17:04
> > To: boost_at_[hidden]
> > Cc: Kostas Savvidis <kotika98_at_[hidden]>; Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>
> > Subject: Re: [boost] Looking for a review manager for Real
> > > On Sep 5, 2020, at 03:02, Damian Vicino via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > >>
> > > There is actually not much overlap with other libraries, it may in the
> > > implementation details be some overlap with boost::interval
> > > arithmetic, but not in the goals or features exposed.
> > >
> > > The goal in Real is to evaluate expressions that the required
> > > precision to evaluate them accurately is unknown in advance and
> > > explores how to achieve perfect accuracy for the evaluation, or fails
> > so any comparisons should be with Boost.Interval
> > and Arb (which is in C).
> And is GPL licenced, not Boost :-(
> Thanks for the comments.
I didn't have experience with the ARB library, but it seems very related. I
think it will be super useful to use for comparing benchmarks and validate
testing (same expression in both should have the same result kind of
I think the next step on our side would be to dig into ARB, automatize and
compare them, and improve documentation. Sounds that we have work on that
area for a while, I will post about review again after we have some
advances there. BTW, great reference to the ARB, the libraries we knew
about the topic are long dead, this one seems pretty much alive and
it's very encouraging to see someone else working in the same area.
About documentation. I think it would be really useful for us to have
someone not involved with the project to point us what are the major areas
of improvement we can target.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk