RE: [boost] Math Constants Library formal review results

From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-26 12:28:01

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Brey [mailto:brey_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:03 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Math Constants Library formal review results
>
> From: "Jens Maurer" <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>
>
> > Also, the user can emulate constant-folding by defining
> > additional variables any time, e.g.
> >   const double three_pi = 3*constants<double>::pi()
> > for those rare cases where it really matters speed-wise.
>
> True.  However, this feels even more distasteful than having a larger
> interface to Boost.MathConstants.  A large part of the purpose of this
> library is to make life easy for the user.

I fear you gurus are forgetting the confusion caused to novice users by
the requirement to write pi() rather than plain pi.  (The worse
compiler even bombs if you forget the ()!)

Are REALLY sure that just defining long doubles isn't simplest
and best?  Casting down to double or float IS understood, even by
novices.

Paul

PS I can produce whatever you can agree on. I can see how to
create all the 3.14F, 3.1 and 3.14L definitions direct from the
NTL generator program without a lot of programming -
 and of course NONE of my lousy typing - fully automatic code generation!
And I will continue to let it
also produce a C version with MACROS, even if BOOSTERS are sniffy about
them!
If we can get C progrms using the same constants as C++ we will ease
the transition from C to C++ and avoid potential portability problems.