From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-19 03:52:19
Well this is _very_ ingenious and looks attractive at first glance,
and I will try to see what the implications are when implemented.
It is complicated for the library - which is fine, because
it will all be generated automatically.
But easy for the user - which is what we want.
I am concerned, as I have been all along, about
the implications of having many (say 100 -ish)
of constants. I feel there are advnatages of having this many
(for example if you look at Knuth or J F Hart Computer Approximations,
a classic on polynomial methods for functions from sqrt to Bessel,
they quote and use over 50 constants.
But if the common use is just to get pi and e,
all this may be overkill, and worse have a cost in compile time,
link size, or worst of all, code bloat.
Any ideas or views on this aspect?
Dr Paul A Bristow, hetp Chromatography
LA8 8AB UK
+44 1539 561830
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Kenniston [mailto:Msk_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 8:32 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] RE: Math constants? [was: Static data vs. inline
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk