From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-20 11:29:29
At 04:52 AM 7/19/2001, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>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?
A math constants library will have two effects:
* It will be used by those who need the constants.
* It will act as an illustration for how to do math constants, which
appear so simple but are actually quite subtle.
Because of the second effect, the library doesn't need to have a really
large number of constants. So don't feel you have to include huge numbers
Just an opinion, of course.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk