RE: [boost] Re: Math Constants Formal Review - accuracy is vital too

From: Paul A Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-18 16:27:28

|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
|  [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Reece Dunn
|  Sent: 18 June 2003 20:23
|  To: boost_at_[hidden]
|  Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Math Constants Formal Review - 

|  Also, using constructs like this is easier for the 
|  programmer. You don't have to search to see if there is a pi/2
constant and find 
|  out what it is called, you simply use:
|     boost::pi / boost::two   or whatever. 

Previous opinions were in favour of a larger set of constants,
and there was considerable discussion about a set of names which
were finally agreed to be reasonably consistent.

Are you forgetting the very important need that the constants
mesh with the Boost interval library?
For these I think you need pi_div_3, for example,
to provide the upper and lower interval values.
(These in turn depend on the floating-point format).

What about the complex case, for which an example is provided
by Michael Kennistons scheme?

Paul