jzmaddock

>The interface only makes sense when I open the source and see that order of the polynomial is requested here. If I somehow knew that the second parameter is order,...

I'm working on a doc update. Aside: I really really hate these functions, I've found 3 different ways of defining this one so far (NIST, Mathworld, and Carlson). Ironically Carlson...

If someone could double check I've got the arguments correct in the above commit that would be great :) Did I mention these are confusing???

OK first the argument order - all the elliptic functions follow the same pattern, they use _k_ the elliptic modulus and _phi_ the amplitude. Both have other representations which are...

> Are you guys using phi instead of u for the Jacobi elliptics sn, cn, dn??? It's not common but it would be more consistent. No we're using k and...

>Can anyone enlighten me on why they are so different? I suspect it's because the parameterization is so different: when you change from phi to u that parameter stops being...

> I had implemented as a future extension jacobi_zeta(k, phi). I kept this argument order for consistency with the Lagendre elliptic functions. Exactly. Right or wrong, we have precedent to...

@NAThompson : one of the ideas I've been toying with (which I think you first suggested!) was having the option for Math and Multiprecision to sit standalone without the rest...

> Is there any way we could do a module while preserving what we have for C++11 users? I confess not to know enough about the current modules proposal to...

> For scalar distribution, using free functions to compute kurtosis, range, so on, is just fine. But for vector types, following this pattern is getting a bit awkward. Should each...