[libc++] Add Mathematical Special Functions status page

[Mordante]

I want to review it later again, open-std.org is down again, so I can't review the status list you added.

libcxx/docs/Status/MathematicalSpecialFunctions.rst

2

copy paste

16

I think it would be good to add a link to p0226r1 here.

libcxx/docs/Status/MathematicalSpecialFunctionsProjects.csv

2

Why not use Section, Description,Dependencies,Assignee,Complete like most other status pages?

libcxx/docs/index.rst

51

Currently the list is in alphabetic order.

[Mordante]

open-std.org is up again, so I finished the review.
I miss the addition of tgmath.h and ctgmath in the status list, however it seems we've already implemented this.

[philnik]

• Address comments

libcxx/docs/Status/MathematicalSpecialFunctions.rst

16

I think adding a link to https://wg21.link/sf.cmath would be a lot more helpful, since P0226R1 doesn't actually list the changes.

libcxx/docs/Status/MathematicalSpecialFunctionsProjects.csv

2

It feels to me like we don't actually use the assignee part in the other status pages very well. We also don't have an assignee field for the main papers and they are just fine. I don't think dependencies are necessary since the functions don't depend on anything AFAICT.

[Mordante]

libcxx/docs/Status/MathematicalSpecialFunctions.rst

16

True, I didn't see that during my initial review. I still think the link is useful since the paper adds a feature-test macro.
I don't mind a link to sf.cmath, but I don't see that as required. You already added nice links for all functions in this section.

libcxx/docs/Status/MathematicalSpecialFunctionsProjects.csv

2

Fair point, it was mainly for consistency.

[ldionne]

The current plan for implementing those was to use the ones in Boost.Math. If we do that, we'd be able to implement all of them in one go, and we wouldn't need to add this status page to track the status of the partially-implemented paper. Ideally we'd do that and avoid adding this status page at all. WDYT?

[philnik]

In D124739#3506589, @ldionne wrote:

The current plan for implementing those was to use the ones in Boost.Math. If we do that, we'd be able to implement all of them in one go, and we wouldn't need to add this status page to track the status of the partially-implemented paper. Ideally we'd do that and avoid adding this status page at all. WDYT?

Wouldn't we have to essentially rewrite these functions if we snack them from boost? I'm not sure how much work it would be to add them all in one go, but it's definitely not just a copy-paste.

[Mordante]

In D124739#3506589, @ldionne wrote:

The current plan for implementing those was to use the ones in Boost.Math. If we do that, we'd be able to implement all of them in one go, and we wouldn't need to add this status page to track the status of the partially-implemented paper. Ideally we'd do that and avoid adding this status page at all. WDYT?

Mainly curious, is the Boost license compatible with the LLVM license?

[h-vetinari]

Any update on this?

[philnik]

In D124739#3647856, @h-vetinari wrote:

Any update on this?

Not really. We're currently focusing on ranges to get as much as possible into LLVM15. After that I want to work on std::pmr. Would you like to work on the mathematical special functions?

[h-vetinari]

We're currently focusing on ranges to get as much as possible into LLVM15. After that I want to work on std::pmr.

Sounds good.

Would you like to work on the mathematical special functions?

Currently more interested as a user, but when the times comes and I'm less under water, then I might try!

[fsb4000]

@Mordante

Mainly curious, is the Boost license compatible with the LLVM license?

I believe yes.
Because MSVC STL uses Boost.Math and MSVC STL has the same license like LLVM, word by word: "The Microsoft C++ Standard Library is under the Apache License v2.0 with LLVM Exception

https://github.com/microsoft/STL/blob/main/LICENSE.txt"

[h-vetinari]

Why abandon this revision? Wouldn't it be useful for this issue to have more visibility rather than less?

[philnik]

In D124739#4057580, @h-vetinari wrote:

Why abandon this revision? Wouldn't it be useful for this issue to have more visibility rather than less?

I've started implementing the functions with the boost::math versions, and with that approach we can just implement all the functions in a single PR, so we don't need a status page.

[h-vetinari]

Cool!

libcxx/docs/Status/MathematicalSpecialFunctions.rst

+.. mathematical-special-functions-status:
+
+============================================
+libc++ Mathematical Special Functions Status
+============================================
+
+.. include:: ../Helpers/Styles.rst
+
+.. contents::
+  :local:
+
+Overview
+========
+
+This document contains the status of the C++17 `Mathematical Special Functions <https://wg21.link/sf.cmathttps://wg21.link/sf.cmathh>`_ implementation in libc++.
+
+If you are interested in contributing to this effort, please send a message
+to the #libcxx channel in the LLVM discord.
+
+Sub-projects in the Implementation Effort
+=========================================
+
+.. csv-table::
+  :file: MathematicalSpecialFunctionsProjects.csv
+  :header-rows: 1
+  :widths: auto

libcxx/docs/Status/MathematicalSpecialFunctionsProjects.csv

+Section,Description,Complete
+| `[sf.cmath.assoc.laguerre] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.assoc.laguerre>`_,"assoc_laguerre, assoc_laguerref, assoc_laguerrel",""
+| `[sf.cmath.assoc.legendre] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.assoc.legendre>`_,"assoc_legendre, assoc_legendref. assoc_legendrel",""
+| `[sf.cmath.beta] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.beta>`_,"beta, betaf, betal",""
+| `[sf.cmath.comp.ellint.1] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.comp.ellint.1>`_,"comp_ellint_1, comp_ellint_1f, comp_ellint_1l",""
+| `[sf.cmath.comp.ellint.2] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.comp.ellint.2>`_,"comp_ellint_2, comp_ellint_2f, comp_ellint_2l",""
+| `[sf.cmath.comp.ellint.3] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.comp.ellint.3>`_,"comp_ellint_3, comp_ellint_3f, comp_ellint_3l",""
+| `[sf.cmath.cyl.bessel.i] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.cyl.bessel.i>`_,"cyl_bessel_i, cyl_bessel_if, cyl_bessel_il",""
+| `[sf.cmath.cyl.bessel.j] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.cyl.bessel.j>`_,"cyl_bessel_j, cyl_bessel_jf, cyl_bessel_jl",""
+| `[sf.cmath.cyl.bessel.k] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.cyl.bessel.k>`_,"cyl_bessel_k, cyl_bessel_kf, cyl_bessel_kl",""
+| `[sf.cmath.cyl.neumann] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.cyl.neumann>`_,"cyl_neumann, cyl_neumannf, cyl_neumannl",""
+| `[sf.cmath.ellint.1] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.ellint.1>`_,"ellint_1, ellint_1f, ellint_1l",""
+| `[sf.cmath.ellint.2] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.ellint.2>`_,"ellint_2, ellint_2f, ellint_2l",""
+| `[sf.cmath.ellint.3] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.ellint.3>`_,"ellint_3, ellint_3f, ellint_3l",""
+| `[sf.cmath.expint] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.expint>`_,"expint, expintf, expintl",""
+| `[sf.cmath.hermite] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.hermite>`_,"hermite, hermitef, hermitel",""
+| `[sf.cmath.laguerre] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.laguerre>`_,"laguerre, laguerref, laguerrel",""
+| `[sf.cmath.legendre] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.legendre>`_,"legendre, legendref, legendrel",""
+| `[sf.cmath.riemann.zeta] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.riemann.zeta>`_,"riemann_zeta, riemann_zetaf, riemann_zetal",""
+| `[sf.cmath.sph.bessel] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.sph.bessel>`_,"sph_bessel, sph_besself, sph_bessell",""
+| `[sf.cmath.sph.legendre] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.sph.legendre>`_,"sph_legendre, sph_legendref, sph_legendrel",""
+| `[sf.cmath.sph.neumann] <https://wg21.link/sf.cmath.sph.neumann>`_,"sph_neumann, sph_neumannf, sph_neumannl",""

libcxx/docs/index.rst

.. toctree::
    BuildingLibcxx
    TestingLibcxx
    Contributing
    Status/Cxx14
    Status/Cxx17
    Status/Cxx20
    Status/Cxx2b
    Status/Format
+   Status/MathematicalSpecialFunctions
    Status/Ranges
    Status/Spaceship
    Status/Zip
 
 
 .. toctree::
     :hidden:
 
     AddingNewCIJobs
     FeatureTestMacroTable