On 25 October 2015 at 17:46, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 10/24/2015 11:38 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On 8 May 2015 at 15:05, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> On 05/07/2015 12:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ed, >>>> >>>> The C++ committee is considering the >>>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/n4437.pdf >>>> proposal to make C++17 include the contents of ISO 29124:2010 (the >>>> special math functions from TR1 that went into a separate standard, >>>> not into C++11). >>>> >>>> What is the status of our TR1 implementation? Is it complete? Good >>>> enough quality to move out of the tr1 sub-dir? >>>> >>>> Even if N4437 isn't accepted for C++17 we could move things around to >>>> turn the TR1 code into an iso29124 implementation, do you think that >>>> would make sense? >>>> >>> That would make absolute sense. >>> I actually have a tree where I've done that. >>> All the functions are in there (29124 removed the hypergeometric >>> functions. >>> I'd like to keep those as extensions. >>> I have some bugfixes also. >>> >>> I have a better version of the Carlson elliptic functions (which are used >>> in >>> the 29124 elliptic functions). >>> >>> Ed >>> >> Hi Ed, Florian, >> >> Here's a patch to re-use the TR1 math functions to implement IS 29124, >> what do you think of this approach? Ed, were you just going to copy >> the files and have duplicated code? >> >> We should probably uglify the names of the hypergeometric functions if >> they are not in the final standard. >> >> This doesn't include Florian's patch, which should be applied. >> >> (I want to get this done before stage 1 ends in a couple of weeks, so >> am posting this for review now, but I'll be unavailable for the next >> week or two and might not be able to actually commit anything until >> stage 3). > > Hi all! > > I am actually very aware of the stage 1 deadline and am working furiously! > > This patch adds the hypergeometric and confluent hypergeometric functions > that were actually stricken fromTR29124. > I actually had a mind to add those back especially since the confluent one > is actually pretty stable in it's realm and is used in some statistics > tests. > I expect that some people have ventures to use both and so TR29129 would not > be a full replacement for TR1 without them. > > I intend to post within the next few days. I have to realize that some of > my hopes and dreams would be better done with these in tree! ;-) > > Thank you for lighting a fire Jonathan!
Excellent, glad to hear you're on this, as you know the code and the specs, whereas I'm poking around blindly :-)
