RE: [boost] two_pi or pi_twice?

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-24 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: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_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
>