From: Joerg Walter (jhr.walter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-14 16:04:49
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Frey" <d.frey_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 9:47 PM
Subject: [boost] RE: Re: Math Constants Formal Review - is extensible.
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:49:05 +0200, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
> > The proposal is for several header files each containing the same
> > constants, only one of which would be used for any compilation. (Users
> > have been warned against using more than one! Nobody has suggested a way
> > to guard against this mistake, but I think that it would be apparent
> > pretty soon, probably at compile time, and at link time if not.) The
> > macros constants header is the simplest and could be used to provide the
> > appropiate value(s) above.
> The difference IMHO is, that this is not a generic approach.
During my last discussion with Paul I realized that math_constants<>
probably isn't the same as numeric_limits<> (nevertheless I'd try to write
them based upon the supplied constants ;-).
> It's a bit
> like replacing templates with macros. I haven't seen any convincing
> arguments against the code I showed, which *is* generic
I like that code.
> IMHO, but as I
> don't have the background of the "long saga" you mentioned, I think I'm
> not the right one to say what's the best way to go.
I'm a bit surprised, that we currently are reviewing some ideas instead of a
library as far as I understood.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk