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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk