Re: [Quantlib-dev] Warming up for 0.3.5

[Ferdinando A. <na...@am...>]

At 10:27 AM 2/13/2004, Luigi Ballabio wrote:
>         it'd be nice to roll out release 0.3.5 sometime during March
It's ok with me. I would go for a freeze in late February or early March, 
with target release date late March.

>What is the status?
Few tests fail with Borland because of some 0/0 in the code.
The same (?) tests fail with Visual C++ if _controlfp(_EM_INEXACT, _MCW_EM 
) is enforced (see 
http://www.wilmott.com/messageview.cfm?catid=10&threadid=9481)
I think we should solve this issue.

There are 3 open bugs: 
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=12740&atid=112740
The last one it's easy to fix, the first two are open since April and 
September 2002 :(

There are also 2 feature requests 
(http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=12740&atid=362740): the first one 
will stay open for a long time, what about the second one?

>  Is anybody working (or about to work) on something
>he'd like to finish before the 0.3.5 branch is created?
Yes, I would like to finish few things about interpolation I was working 
on. Of course should it take longer than the end of February it will ship 
in 0.3.6

For 0.3.5 I would prefer not to ship binaries. My idea is that QuantLib is 
for quantitative developers that must be able to recompile the library, and 
should be able to compile and run the test suite. What do you think about it?

I will try to upgrade the Win32 installer to NSIS 2

If I got it right boost is going to be optional for 0.3.5. I for one vote 
to have it as requirement for 0.3.6: if everybody agree we should make 
clear that 0.3.5 is transitional toward boost. BTW Luigi: any chance about 
using the boost test suite instead of cppunit? Have you ever compared the 
two approaches?

Last but not least the multi-dimensional Monte Carlo simulation framework 
should probably be labelled as beta for the time being, at least until it 
is proven to work with Brownian Bridge + low discrepancy sequences

ciao -- Nando