"Paul A. Bristow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 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.
Being one of the persons who raised the accuracy issue, I think I have to say why. The proposed mathematical functions are not there just for selling compilers. They are there to serve *practical* purposes. If there is no accuracy guarantee, they don't worth to have -- they are already so specialized. LIA has already set framework for those things. Any serious proposal to include such specialized functions need to pay attention to those things. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost