RE: [boost] Re: TODAY: Math Constants library formal review starts

From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-19 12:10:46

Ralf wrote:

> - What are the reasons for including support for C in Boost?

On my first floating of these constants,
it seemed impossible to achieve agreement about packaging and names,
which is why I have gone for a lowest common denominator proposal.

> - The heavy use of macros seems very unfortunate.
>   Especially, something like BOOST_UNITY looks like pretty bad
>   namespace pollution to me.

An undef file is provided to remove all the pollutants after use,
as the examples demonstrate.
>
> - Naively I was expecting something like:

and you can get it thus:

>   namespace boost {
>     namespace math {
>       namespace F {
>         const float pi = static_cast<float>BOOST_PI;
>         //...
>       }
>       namespace D {
>         const double pi = static_cast<double>BOOST_PI;
>         //...
>       }
>       namespace L {
>         const long double pi = BOOST_PI;
>         //...
>       }
>       template <typename T> // just for the idea, details might need
> work
>       pi(const T&) { return boost::math::L::pi; }
>       //...
>     }
>   }
> }
>
> - 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?

Indeed that's what I did originally - but without agreement about the names!

Paul

Dr Paul A Bristow, hetp Chromatography
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, Cumbria
LA8 8AB      UK
[phone]
mailto:pbristow_at_[hidden]