Re: [pure-lang-users] math.pure

[Libor S. <li...@gm...>]

Probably having just the natural logarithm would avoid the potential confusion.
Anyone wanting any "unnatural" base ought to understand enough to do ln x / ln b themselves.
L.

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:29:05 +0100, me22 <me...@gm...> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 16:13, Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...> wrote:
>> Eddie Rucker wrote:
>>> However, instead of log x being the log base 10 how about
>>>
>>> log b::int x::double | log b::bigint x::double = ln x / ln b;
>>
>> Seems useful. Well, log is customary for base 10 logarithms, at least on
>> this side of the Atlantic. I could rename that function to log10, though
>> (that's also how it's called in Python). Or we could use log (x,b) or
>> log (b,x) for a logarithm with given base (but that would take away the
>> possibility to curry, which is pretty useful with your definition).
>> Opinions?
>>
>
> I'd say "customary" depends greatly on context.  Without a base, I
> think it should be natural, for consistency with C and my math profs.
>
> I really like the curried version, though.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
> It's the best place to buy or sell services for
> just about anything Open Source.
> http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
> _______________________________________________
> pure-lang-users mailing list
> pur...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pure-lang-users
>