From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-28 21:49:41
Maybe I read too much into Hubert's mail, but this section is what prompted
me to bring it up:
"This namespace would contain atanh, sinc and sinhc, and would
welcome other such functions. It would also enable one to have,
perhaps, templated sin, cos and friend functions, which have non-
templated forms in the standard"
When you start defining free functions like sin and cos, it is natural to
wonder how they should be used in generic code, and how a user-defined
numeric type should interoperate with that code.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>; <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] boost subnamespaces proposal.
> At 06:47 PM 6/28/2001, David Abrahams wrote:
> >I think we need to think carefully about library issues 225 and 229 when
> >proceeding down the path of defining generalized free math functions.
> I'm sorry, maybe it is too close to bedtime, but I couldn't relate your
> discussion, interesting though it was, to Hubert's namespace proposal.
> Or was it more a case of a train of thought that got kicked off by his
> proposal, but doesn't actually bear on whether or not we should have a
> namespace boost::math with sub-namespace boost::math::special_functions?
> Confused in Virginia,
> Info: http://www.boost.org Unsubscribe:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk