feat: use Math for double::{ln,log2,log10} on JS

[tonyfettes]

Follow up of #1485 .

This PR use Math library on JS backend to implement:

• Double::ln
• Double::log2
• Double::log10

TODO: 15.0.log10() is now inconsistent between JS & Other platforms.

[peter-jerry-ye-code-review]

‼️ This code review is generated by a bot. Please verify the content before trusting it.

Here are three observations from the provided git diff output:

1. Inconsistent Example in log10 Test:

   • In the log10 test, the line // inspect!(15.0.log10(), content="1.1760912590556811") is commented out. This might be intentional for debugging or testing purposes, but it could also be an oversight. If this test case is valid, it should be uncommented to ensure it runs as part of the test suite. If it's no longer needed, it should be removed to avoid confusion.

2. Potential Typo in ln Function Documentation:

   • In the documentation for the ln function, the example shows inspect!(1.0.ln(), content="0"). However, the natural logarithm of 1.0 is actually 0.0, not 0. This might be a typo or a formatting issue. The expected output should likely be "0.0" to match the precision of the other examples.

3. Inconsistent Naming in File Renaming:

   • The file log.mbt is being renamed to log_nonjs.mbt, which is consistent with the naming convention used for other files (e.g., exp_nonjs.mbt). However, the new file log_js.mbt is introduced without a corresponding log.mbt file. This might cause confusion if someone expects a generic log.mbt file to exist. It would be better to ensure that the naming conventions are consistently applied across all files.

These are the key issues I noticed. Let me know if you need further clarification or assistance!

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 4803

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 83.126%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 4797:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	4872
Relevant Lines:	5861

---

💛 - Coveralls

[Kaida-Amethyst]

I noticed that (15.0).log10() exhibits inconsistencies between JS and other platforms. Below is the current implementation:

// current version
pub fn log10(self : Double) -> Double {
  ln(self) / ln10
}

May I propose an improved version with better precision, which I have tested locally and found to perform well?

pub fn log10(x: Double) -> Double {
  if x < 0 || x.is_nan() {
    return not_a_number
  }
  if x.is_inf() {
    return x
  }
  let ivln10 = 4.34294481903251816668e-01
  let log10_2hi = 3.01029995663611771306e-01
  let log10_2lo = 3.69423907715893078616e-13
  let (f, e) = frexp(x)
  let (f, e) = if e >= 1 {
    (f * 2.0, (e - 1).to_double())
  } else {
    (f, e.to_double())
  }
  let z = e * log10_2lo + ivln10 * log(f)
  z + e * log10_2hi
}

[tonyfettes]

@Kaida-Amethyst Thank you for your proposal! Could you please open a PR for that?

[Kaida-Amethyst]

@Kaida-Amethyst Thank you for your proposal! Could you please open a PR for that?

Ok, No probelm 👌🏻 , gonna post a PR soon 😸

[Kaida-Amethyst]

@Kaida-Amethyst Thank you for your proposal! Could you please open a PR for that?

PR link: #1499 😸