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

From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-25 03:56:04

Of course - but if we use math_constants as a namespace,
if would be confusing to put math functions in it.

But if we use namespace math, its not illogical to put both constants and
functions in it.

Depends on whether creating lots of namespaces is considered a good idea, or
not.

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:abrahams_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 9:36 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] TODAY: Math Constants library formal review starts
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul A. Bristow" <pbristow_at_[hidden]>
>
> > I think we will provide math functions (hopefully soon - see
> NIST proposal
> > http://dlmf.nist.gov) so do we stuff future math functions in the same
> > namespace math?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Other views please!?!
>
> Can't we decide that if and when we get to providing those math functions?
>
> -Dave
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to: <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>