RE: [boost] Interval library merge

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-21 05:23:50

I agree with this - intervals seem more numeric to me - though where that leaves
constants (especially interval constants) I am less clear.

Paul

PS I think it is time to have another Formal Review of Math Constants.  Please
can the Review Wizard schedule this?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Beman Dawes
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 6:22 PM
> To: Boost mailing list; Boost mailing list
> Subject: Re: [boost] Interval library merge
>
>
> At 09:55 AM 1/20/2003, David Abrahams wrote:
>
>  >Guillaume Melquiond <gmelquio_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>  >> but before that, something must be decided: where to put the
>  >> library?
>  >>
>  >> This question was already discussed on this mailing-list some times
> ago,
>  >> but no clear answer was given at that time. The library directory is
>  >> actually directly under boost. To avoid cluttering the root, it would
>  >> probably be better to put it somewhere else; for example, boost/math or
>  >> boost/numeric.  Unfortunately, the library has some good reasons to be
>  >> put
>  >> in each of these directories. So I suggest it is put in boost/numeric
>  >> (heads or tails).
>  >>
>  >> Subsidiary question: should the namespace tree follow the directory
> tree?
>  >> I think it should; but since I will need a few hours to correct the
> whole
>  >> source and documentation (it isn't as easy as changing the #include at
>  >> the top of the files), I prefer to ask beforehand.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion, but mildly favor boost/numeric with
> namespace tree following directory tree.
>
> --Beman
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>