Re: [boost] RE: Re: Math Constants Formal Review - is extensible.

From: Joerg Walter (jhr.walter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-14 16:04:49

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Frey" <d.frey_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_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.

Regards,
Joerg