
Boost : 
From: rwgk_at_[hidden]
Date: 20010418 17:00:20
 In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_m...> wrote:
> The formal review of Paul Bristow's math constants library begins
today and
> runs through Wed April 25th. Please have a look and post your
comments to
> this list.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave Abrahams
> Review Manager
I have not been following the Math Constants thread in this forum.
Here is what came to my mind after browsing through the html
documentation:
 What are the reasons for including support for C in Boost?
 The heavy use of macros seems very unfortunate.
Especially, something like BOOST_UNITY looks like pretty bad
namespace pollution to me.
 Naively I was expecting something like:
namespace boost {
namespace math {
namespace F {
const float pi = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288F;
//...
}
namespace D {
const double pi = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288;
//...
}
namespace L {
const long double pi = 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288L;
//...
}
template <typename T> // just for the idea, details might need
work
pi(const T&) { return boost::math::L::pi; }
//...
}
}
Usage:
int main(void)
{
using boost::math::F::pi;
//... code that uses pi (more than once)
}
template <typename T>
circumference(T radius)
{
return 2 * boost::math::pi(static_cast<T>(0)) * radius;
}
 The header file math_constants.h seems to be generated by
a the defineConstants.cpp program. Wouldn't it be possible to make
the program also generate a real C++ header that does not contain
any macros?
Ralf
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk