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

From: Paul A. Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-25 12:41:31

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Ken Hagan
| Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:42 AM
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: [boost] Re: math_constants parameterisation and return by ref
|
|
| > Paul A. Bristow wrote:
| >
| >> There was widespread agreement that no solution requiring pi() would
| >> be widely acceptable.
|
| Deane Yang wrote:
| >
| > 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.
|
| As I recall, someone from Fermilab claimed that they had tried
| the pi() syntax, but the end-users (your average scientific
| programmer) just wouldn't use a constant that looked like it had
| function call overheads. Since this was real-world experience
| with the intended user base, it carried quite a lot of weight.
|
| It is also my recollection that most boosters who expressed an
| opinion were somewhat shocked that a group of degree-qualified
| scientists couldn't see (or just accept) that there was no such
| overheads. Perhaps that was just my reaction. :)

There was also a more important view that the ()s have a really bad effect on
readability: I share this view strongly.

These scientists (and others) write equations that are difficult enough to read
without all the extra brackets.

Paul

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