RE: [boost] Re: Math Constants revisited

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-11 04:22:38

You are not the only one to suggest this,
but it was definitely rejected in previous discussions.

Briefly, it doesn't always give the best answer,
and it is costly at run-time,
requires acos (embedded builders especially won't need or want it).

I recommend reading the documentation for more rationale.
 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/MathConstants/Math_constants.htm

Paul

PS there are of course dozens of other constants.
Pi is only a simple example - a prototype for others.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Gennaro Prota
> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 5:06 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: Math Constants revisited
> 
> 
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 02:23:50 -0700, Alex Rosenberg <alexr_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> 
> >on 7/7/02 11:18 PM, Paul A. Bristow at boost_at_[hidden] wrote:
> >
> >> Some time ago I started what became a long discussion about 
> the presentation
> >> of math constants, like pi.
> >
> >It would be best to offer up a constant for pi that "matches" 
> the one used
> >in the provided transcendental functions (sin, cos, etc.)
> 
> Sorry if this is a silly question that arises from the fact that I
> missed the original discussion, but what's the problem with obtaining
> such a value through std :: acos(-1) ?
> 
> 
> Genny.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
>