-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Matthias Schabel Sent: 07 December 2006 20:29 To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] Numerical Quadrature Library/Boost.Accumulators
If there is a push to begin thinking about numerical libraries to be incorporated into Boost, I would vote to think seriously about having a return type that includes error estimates (as GSL does with it's result type or, perhaps, something like the measurement class I threw together as a demo for mcs::units, attached). If implicit conversion to the result type was allowed, it would be transparent to functions that didn't care about errors and visible to those that do.
As far as I can see, precision needs to be the same type as the return type since it represents uncertainty in the latter. That is, the range of possible return values would be [result - n*error, result + n*error]. Do you have a case in mind where this isn't true?
I strongly support thinking about (computational) uncertainty estimates. (Uncertainty seems to be the 'modern' term for what was called error). But I am not clear exactly how to achieve this. We've got Interval but it's doubtful if this is the right weapon to use. This is a potential big strength for C++ over other languages. Paul --- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539561830 & SMS, Mobile +44 7714 330204 & SMS pbristow@hetp.u-net.com