On Jul 9, 12:18 am, Fredrik Johansson
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:09 PM, smichr wrote:
>
> > On Jul 8, 10:23 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
> >> Ah, yes, I think it should be called fastlog2. Fredrik, what do you think?
>
> > And someone who has used this should probably comment on the need
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 9:09 PM, smichr wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jul 8, 10:23 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
>> Ah, yes, I think it should be called fastlog2. Fredrik, what do you think?
>>
> And someone who has used this should probably comment on the need to
> have the sign ignored: the fastlog for both 16
On Jul 8, 10:23 pm, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> Ah, yes, I think it should be called fastlog2. Fredrik, what do you think?
>
And someone who has used this should probably comment on the need to
have the sign ignored: the fastlog for both 16 and -16 would be 4 as
it is written now. *Should* the sign
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:13 AM, smichr wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jul 7, 10:38 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 6:52 PM, smichr wrote:
>>
>> > I noticed that fastlog in evalf computes an approximation to log2(x).
>> > Is there any reason not to call it fastlog2?
>>
>> Could you please
On Jul 7, 10:38 am, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 6:52 PM, smichr wrote:
>
> > I noticed that fastlog in evalf computes an approximation to log2(x).
> > Is there any reason not to call it fastlog2?
>
> Could you please be more specific? Which commands do you mean exactly?
>
Ma
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 6:52 PM, smichr wrote:
>
> I noticed that fastlog in evalf computes an approximation to log2(x).
> Is there any reason not to call it fastlog2?
Could you please be more specific? Which commands do you mean exactly?
Ondrej
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~-
