Re: [boost] Re: math_constants parameterisation and return by ref

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-22 12:12:36

At 09:54 AM 1/22/2004, Deane Yang wrote:

 >Paul A. Bristow wrote:
 >
 >> There was widespread agreement that no solution requiring pi() would
 >> be widely acceptable.
 >>
 >
 >I'm sorry if my recollection is incorrect, but I only remember seeing
 >messages from you stating this. I do not remember seeing anyone else
 >on the boost mailing list expressing this view.

My recollection is the same as Paul's. There was a strong preference 
expressed for pi rather than pi(). The discussions took place a long time 
ago during the original review of Paul's library.

--Beman