From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-17 12:13:39
Matt Austern wrote
> I'm not convinced that 1 and 0 belong in a numeric constants class; they
> seem more like things that belong in a numeric type traits class, or maybe
> even something that's still more general. There are plenty of types for
> which you can reasonably ask for the additive or multiplicative identity
> element, but where these transcendental constants make no sense.
> NxN matrices, quaternions,... There's a sensible "zero" even for
Agree with what you say
- but since math_constants in a separate namespace,
is there any significant disadvantage
to having them with other numeric constants?
Completeness has some merit?
Some people find the word 'zero' nicer than '0.'?
Dr Paul A Bristow, hetp Chromatography
LA8 8AB UK
+44 1539 561830
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk