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

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-22 12:46:47

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Deane Yang
| Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 2:54 PM
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: [boost] Re: math_constants parameterisation and return by ref
|
| I agree that the syntax is less than ideal, but so is the syntax for
| MPL and many other things in C++.
|
| It appears to me that the efforts to replace "pi()" by "pi" are
| both testing the limits of current compilers AND delaying the review
| of the constants library. Why can't we get moving on the constants
| library with a correct C++ interface and, if a simpler interface is
| developed later, modify the library later (with backwards compatibility,
| which should not be a problem)?
|
| I also do not understand your characterization of the "no macros policy"
| as being "Politically Correct". There are good reasons for this policy,
| and they have been articulated quite clearly by those who ask for it.
|
| I vote for the easier-to-implement interface (i.e., "pi()")
| and no macros and let's get this constants library out the door.
| It IS very useful.

There are arguments for (and against) ALL the methods of presenting constants,
(even Daniel's 'dream' solution that I fear will cost compile time).

That is why I proposed the 'dirty' solution of providing them ALL.

But this didn't seem acceptable, so this is why at present Boost has NONE :-((

Paul

Paul A Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria, LA8 8AB  UK
[phone]   Mobile [phone]
mailto:pbristow_at_[hidden]