From: Marco (mrcekets_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-03 11:15:17
On Wed, 02 May 2007 20:30:01 +0200, Matthias Schabel
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 5) It appears that this library will actually become two "sublibraries"
> within the Boost.Math library.
I agree but, IMO, this should be achieved mostly by using
paths/directories, exactly as that already happens in J. Maddock & co.'s
library.
> Currently all code lives in the boost::math namespace; I would like to
> at least see a discussion of the possibility of having
> boost::math::special_functions, boost::math::statistics, and, perhaps,
> boost::math::statistics::distributions namespaces - as more
> functionality gets added to boost::math, collisions will become more
> likely, so some thought given now to logical partitioning may save pain
> later.
I, respectfully, disagree. I find this subdivision too pedantic.
IMHO only the boost::math::statistics namespace could be needed.
Under this namespace distributions are enough contextualized.
As far as special functions, they are enough general, as mathematical
objects, that they should be put straight under the boost::math namespace.
Congratulations to the authors' library on their good and well documented
work.
Marco
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/