The docs for Numeric Constants seems out-of-date compared to the <boost/math/constants/constants.hpp> header. See http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_too... For example, the docs list 15 constants, but the header supplies 65 or so constants. Beyond simply missing some functions, the description is so scanty it looks like it may be for a much less capable older version of the header. Am I missing something? --Beman
The docs for Numeric Constants seems out-of-date compared to the <boost/math/constants/constants.hpp> header.
See http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_too...
For example, the docs list 15 constants, but the header supplies 65 or so constants.
Beyond simply missing some functions, the description is so scanty it looks like it may be for a much less capable older version of the header.
Am I missing something?
I believe you're looking at the header in Trunk, and docs in the last release (in which the constants were a barely documented implementation detail). See http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_too... for Trunk docs. HTH, John.
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:08 PM, John Maddock <boost.regex@virgin.net> wrote:
The docs for Numeric Constants seems out-of-date compared to the <boost/math/constants/constants.hpp> header.
See http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_too...
For example, the docs list 15 constants, but the header supplies 65 or so constants.
Beyond simply missing some functions, the description is so scanty it looks like it may be for a much less capable older version of the header.
Am I missing something?
I believe you're looking at the header in Trunk, and docs in the last release (in which the constants were a barely documented implementation detail).
Duh! Sorry for the noise. The docs are quite nice. A couple of suggestions: * In the Introduction's "Why use Boost.Math mathematical constants?" section, consider adding a top level bullet calling out the supported UDT types, rather than mentioning them in the "Accurate" bullet. See attached. UDT support seems to me to be too interesting and important to bury in a description of accuracy. * Consider adding a historical note somewhere mentioning some of the past math constant attempts and why they were considered insufficient. Then add a FAQ entry "Why is the header done that way?" with an answer that points to the historical note for the problems naive approaches run into. HTH, --Beman
The docs are quite nice. A couple of suggestions:
* In the Introduction's "Why use Boost.Math mathematical constants?" section, consider adding a top level bullet calling out the supported UDT types, rather than mentioning them in the "Accurate" bullet. See attached. UDT support seems to me to be too interesting and important to bury in a description of accuracy.
Done.
* Consider adding a historical note somewhere mentioning some of the past math constant attempts and why they were considered insufficient. Then add a FAQ entry "Why is the header done that way?" with an answer that points to the historical note for the problems naive approaches run into.
Does this FAQ entry not cover it? http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_too... Cheers, John.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:44 AM, John Maddock <boost.regex@virgin.net> wrote:
The docs are quite nice. A couple of suggestions:
* In the Introduction's "Why use Boost.Math mathematical constants?" section, consider adding a top level bullet calling out the supported UDT types, rather than mentioning them in the "Accurate" bullet. See attached. UDT support seems to me to be too interesting and important to bury in a description of accuracy.
Done.
* Consider adding a historical note somewhere mentioning some of the past math constant attempts and why they were considered insufficient. Then add a FAQ entry "Why is the header done that way?" with an answer that points to the historical note for the problems naive approaches run into.
Does this FAQ entry not cover it? http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_too...
Yes, that's fine. I missed it somehow. --Beman
I believe you're looking at the header in Trunk, and docs in the last release (in which the constants were a barely documented implementation detail). See http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_too... for Trunk docs. HTH, John.
Great collection. And I remember adding some suggestions. In "The Mathematical Constants" section of the docs in the column "Value (6 decimals)", the constants listed below are, I believe, too large by a factor of 10. Looks like a trivial cut-paste error. * ln_two() * ln_ln_two()Best regards. chris.
Great collection. And I remember adding some suggestions.
In "The Mathematical Constants" section of the docs in the column "Value (6 decimals)", the constants listed below are, I believe, too large by a factor of 10. Looks like a trivial cut-paste error.
* ln_two() * ln_ln_two()Best regards. chris.
Fixed, thanks.
W dniu 9 kwietnia 2012 10:42 użytkownik John Maddock <boost.regex@virgin.net
napisał:
Great collection. And I remember adding some suggestions.
In "The Mathematical Constants" section of the docs in the column "Value (6 decimals)", the constants listed below are, I believe, too large by a factor of 10. Looks like a trivial cut-paste error.
* ln_two() * ln_ln_two()Best regards. chris.
Fixed, thanks.
______________________________**_________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/** mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost<http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost>
There seems to be a typo in the table's second column for log10_e and one_div_log10_e as well (s/ln/log10): log10_e ln(e) 0.434294 one_div_log10_e 1/ln(e) 2.30258 Regards, Kris
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Krzysztof Czainski Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 4:28 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [math] Numeric constants docs out of date?
W dniu 9 kwietnia 2012 10:42 użytkownik John Maddock <boost.regex@virgin.net
napisał:
Great collection. And I remember adding some suggestions.
In "The Mathematical Constants" section of the docs in the column "Value (6 decimals)", the constants listed below are, I believe, too large by a factor of 10. Looks like a trivial cut-paste error.
* ln_two() * ln_ln_two()Best regards. chris.
Fixed, thanks.
______________________________**_________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/** mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost<http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi /boost>
There seems to be a typo in the table's second column for log10_e and one_div_log10_e as well (s/ln/log10):
log10_e ln(e) 0.434294
one_div_log10_e 1/ln(e) 2.30258
Thanks for reporting these - will fix. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
participants (5)
-
Beman Dawes -
Christopher Kormanyos -
John Maddock -
Krzysztof Czainski -
Paul A. Bristow