Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 15:56:08 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> To: freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org Subject: Re: standards/175811: libstdc++ needs complex support in order use C99 Message-ID: <51A7BCE8.3010001@missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <20130530171348.GA67170@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <201302040328.r143SUd3039504@freefall.freebsd.org> <510F306A.6090009@missouri.edu> <C5BD0238-121D-4D8B-924A-230C07222666@FreeBSD.org> <20130530064635.GA91597@zim.MIT.EDU> <51A77324.2070702@FreeBSD.org> <20130530171348.GA67170@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/30/2013 12:13 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > What I find appalling is reading "people are tired > of the situation with libm, so I'm going to commit > some atrocious hack". The proper response should be > "so I'm going to help implement and test the missing > functionality". It's unfortunate that only a few > individuals are working to fix libm, but such is > life. I don't think the problem is that there are too few individuals. I think the problem is that the standards are set too high. I presented numerically accurate complex arc-trig functions a long time ago, and I became increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress. I am pleased that it got committed a few days ago. But I feel that the change requests, particular the style change requests, became too much. I dutifully complied with the many style changes, but it became overwhelming. There is a happy medium between simply copying the *l functions to the * functions, and what we have now. I am all for having reasonable standards, but what we currently have is gridlock that is unacceptable.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51A7BCE8.3010001>