Re: [Boost-users] [TR1 Review] TR1 Formal Review Beginning

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-30 08:31:15

"John Maddock" <john_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:049301c5c5a7$369f3160$cfc76b51_at_fuji...
>> In Mathematical Special Functions, why are the functions not template
>> specialisations?
>
> You would have to ask the original author of that section, but I believe 
> it
> was C compatibility.

I'm also under that impression.

> There is also the issue that many of these functions can only be 
> implemented
> efficiently if you know the precission of the argument type up front, so 
> the
> float/double/long double versions would have different implementations in
> any case (different Chebyshev polynomial approximations for example) and
> there would be no "generic" implementation readily possible.

I've also heard comments from the Dinkumware folks that testing is a really 
major undertaking with these functions, and it also has to be very precision 
specific.

--Beman