Re: [boost] RE: Math constants? [was: Static data vs. inline functions]

From: John Max Skaller (skaller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-22 15:36:33

"Peter Schmitteckert (boost)" wrote:

> > > 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.
[]
> > Its overkill. What we need is just a list of constants.

>  overkill is relative. You never happened to search
> books for one of these strange constants you never heard about
> before but you suddenly need. I did, and having them
> save you lot's of time.

        I agree.

> You could also argue that having 'cosh' is an overkill,
> it's not.

        Perhaps we have a misunderstanding. 
My intent was to say that the best thing to have 
is _just_ a list of constants. Not functions returning
constants, or templates, or some other arcane C++
meta-contortion.

        There are issues of precision, etc, which
can be 'solved' using such techniques. Its these I'm 
saying are overkill, not having a comprehensive list
of constants (which I think is a good idea).

-- 
John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller_at_[hidden] 
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
New generation programming language Felix  http://felix.sourceforge.net
Literate Programming tool Interscript     
http://Interscript.sourceforge.net