
Boost : 
From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 20021024 11:02:07
Is
#define two_pi pi_twice
the best way to provide two_pi in addition to pi_twice?
(other ways might be code bloating?)
Paul
> Original Message
> From: boostbounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boostbounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Matthias Troyer
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 8:48 PM
> To: Boost mailing list
> Subject: Re: [boost] two_pi or pi_twice?
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 08:45 PM, Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> > More seriously, I prefer using a sort of Polish inverse notation in
> > order
> > to have the main term in front of the name. For example, I think it's
> > more
> > homogeneous to have
> >
> > pi_half
> > pi_twice
> >
> > rather than
> >
> > half_pi
> > two_pi
>
> While I understand the logic behind this, the use of the phrase "two
> pi" is so common in the physics community that I don't see anybody ever
> using a library constant called "pi_twice". I would rather write 2*pi
> which is better readable. Thus, even if there turns out to be a
> consensus for a standard notation starting with the symbol name I would
> strongly urge to keep "two_pi" in addition as a special case.
>
> Matthias
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk