Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
Don wrote:
Luís Marques wrote:
A naive binary chop doesn't work correctly. The fact that there are
hundreds or thousands of times as many representable numbers between
0 and 1, as there are between 1 and 2, is problematic for
divide-and-conquer algorithms. A naive binary chop would divide the
interval [0 .. 2] into [0 .. 1] and [1 .. 2]. Unfortunately, this is
not a true binary chop, because the interval [0 .. 1] contains more
than 99% of the representable numbers from the original interval!
How about adding a template to do a binary chop (binary search?) to
std.algorithm?
findRoot() (which needs to be updated to take advantage of compiler
improvements) does the job in the most important case. I'm quite proud
of it; as far as I know, it's uses a better algorithm than anything
else on the planet. <g>
Awesome! I hadn't even noticed the std.numeric module before. :)
Just a small comment: I think that the type of the function parameter
should be templated as well, so that one can pass both functions,
delegates and functors to it.
Just now I tried to apply findRoot to an actual problem I'm working on,
and immediately failed because I tried to pass a free function to it. A
trivial thing to work around, but annoying nevertheless.
How do you choose/limit what to put in std.numeric? I don't suppose
you're going to put all of NETLIB in there... ;) Already, it seems to me
that findRoot is somewhat niche for a standard library.
I agree, right now std.numeric is a repository of whatever Don and I
have been interested in writing, loosely related to "numerics". But, for
example, the string kernels are hardly numeric stuff. (By the way, I
think my implementation of gapWeighted* is really the darn best around.)
I'd say, let it grow for a while and then ways to decompose it will show
themselves.
Andrei
