Re: [boost] Re: two_pi or pi_twice?

From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-24 10:26:02

At Thursday 2002/10/24 02:22, you wrote:
>"Paul A. Bristow" <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote...
> >
> > So I would appreciate views (I have a zero expectation of any
> > consensus!!) on the relative attractiveness of two schemes:
>
>My brain tells me that pi_twice will scale better to more obscure
>constants, but "two_pi" is just the Right Thing in this case. There
>aren't many such cases. I don't think any other transcendentals are
>common enough in formulae to justify it.
>
>One small gripe. I would always say "pi_over_two", never "half pi".
>I know that "over" is an infix operator here, but should we bend the
>rules for simple fractions? It does still begin with "pi"

Agreed!!  .... and amen.
I've been puzzled over the desire to use postfix here.
the C++ (and C) language(s) are NOT postfix.
We write pi / 2 NOT pi 2 /
We write sqrt(pi) NOT pi sqrt

As was pointed out decades ago (as an argument against case sensitivity), 
the meaning of a program shouldn't become inscrutable simply because the 
source is read to someone over the telephone.

>.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Victor A. Wagner Jr.      http://rudbek.com
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"