log10, was: bug report, or am I doing something wrong?

i wrote:

> " yeah. well, it could happen with sufficient effort, but i'm not
> willing to invest the weeks or months necessary, so it won't happen any
> year soon ..."

i take it back. i don't think it's such a big deal after all.

since log10 is typically used for calculations only,
i don't see any need to reproduce all of the algebraic
machinery already in place for log base e.

i'll bet that this much is almost enough:
log10 (a*b) => log10(a) + log10(b), log10(a^b) => b log10(a),
log10(1) = 0, log10(a) > 0 iff a > 1, ev (log10(a), numer) =>
ev(log(a)/log(10), numer), log10(a) > log10(b) iff a > b,
and expand_log10(expr) => expr with all log10(x) replaced by log(x)/log(10).

that mostly covers the calculations and provides an avenue
to reach the algebraic stuff (namely by converting to log's)
should it ever be needed.

for what it's worth,
robert dodier