Well, take erf using a single parameter for precision
template precision = 0.1
double erf{};
Then in usage somewhere...
{
double x2 = erf0.01(0);
double x5 = erf(0);
cout round(x2*100)/100.0 round(x2*1E5)*1E-5 endl;
cout round(x5*100)/100.0 round(x5*1E5)*1E-5 endl;
}
Possible output:
1.00 0.99583
1.00 1.0
The idea is that erf0.01 only gives a result accurate to 2 decimal
places, while erf or erf0.1 gives a result accurate to 5 decimal
places.
That's the basic idea I tried to convey.
Getting multiple performance parameters in would be tougher... and I'm
unsure as to which would be most useful to people... I could imagine
something like trying to specify a time bound and a minimum precision...
possibly causing a compile-time error if there is no available
implementation that can achieve it. Of course, the defining of a time
bound is tricky... As far as precision, an integer number of decimal
places would probably be easier from the implementation standpoint.
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
| Well, *practical* can mean a number of things to different people.
| Maybe performance constraints should be template parameters with default
| values?
Once, you have defined meaning for perfomance and workable proposal
I'd be glad to consider it.
| One possibility being precision?
Could you elaborate on this please?
-- Gaby
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
___
Unsubscribe other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
