Indeed, I doubt if long double is practically useful for many applications - even 16 decimal place 64-bit double will be impracticable on MSVC where there isn't really a long double (you may need to use 80-bit calculations to get a 64-bit accuracy result).
But I don't believe that this is a problem - exp, sin etc don't really work for long double on MSVC either! And many implementations are not fully accurate - nor would one necessarily want to wait while they calculate to full accuracy. The Standard does not, and should not, make any requirements about accuracy, memory size or speed. So I feel they are panicing a bit. Paul Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 Mobile +44 7714 33 02 04 Mobile mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -----Original Message----- | From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Beman Dawes | Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 12:17 PM | To: Boost mailing list | Subject: RE: [boost] C++ Standard Library proposal - Math functions | forStatistics | | | At 04:21 AM 4/23/2003, Paul A. Bristow wrote: | | >I feel Boost can also help by providing just one working implementation, | >even if just at 32-bit float accuracy, so any vendor who doesn't feel | >willing or able to provide a better one can still offer the Boost one | >and claim compliance. | | What worried the vendors wasn't the float accuracy, but the long double | accuracy. | | One particular worry was that the amount of machine time required would be | on the order of months. | | --Beman | | | _______________________________________________ | Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost | | _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
