Future directions for Boost.Math and Boost.Multiprecision
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. (This is not, of course, a promise to implement everything or indeed anything! But might help us to focus work on areas that have most value to users.) Paul
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 07:57 Paul A Bristow via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> 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
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@lists.boost.org> wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 07:57 Paul A Bristow via Boost <boost@lists.boost.org> 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
participants (3)
-
Christopher Kormanyos -
Damian Vicino -
pbristow＠hetp.u-net.com