From: Bruno Lalande (bruno.lalande_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-02-18 08:00:06
Thanks for your feedback, I will take it into account to improve the
documentation. Actually I wasn't sure how long and detailed it was expected
to be, so I preferred to do something short at first. Also for the
description of error handling, I didn't want to end up with something too
repetitive regarding what is already described in the Boost.Math error
handling documentation. But indeed, a short and concise enough demo could be
About the "known in advance" expression, I myself hesitated a lot. The
choice depends on who we prefer to talk to : the mathematician (for whom
"fixed" and "known in advance" should be more natural) or the programmer
(who will find "known at compile-time" more expressive).
On Feb 17, 2008 7:35 PM, Paul A Bristow <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> >[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Bruno Lalande
> >Sent: 17 February 2008 17:04
> >To: boost_at_[hidden]
> >Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost] Compile-time power of a run-time base
> >Here is a new version of the pow.hpp file with updated tests
> >and docs. It
> >nows handles errors using the Boost.Math overflow error
> >policy, and uses
> >promote_args to determine the return type.
> >I've tested it on the same platforms as before, BUT it no
> >longer compiles
> >with gcc-2.95.4. The first reason was that policy.hpp includes
> ><limits> that
> >gcc 2.95 doesn't have so I replaced it by <boost/limits.hpp>
> >and it worked,
> >but some other Boost files include other headers that are also
> >missing (ios
> >for instance, included in lcast_precision.hpp). Is the support for that
> >compiler required?
> Not by me ;-) I would not spend time on this outdated compiler. Surely
> people who really want to use a compile tile pow will be
> using more modern compilers?
> Docs might provide a reference or few. I found
> by a very quick Google
> I'm sure we should give Knuth his due for having done everything before we
> even thought of it ;-)
> D.E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 2: seminumerical
> Algorithms, 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1981.
> I think occurrence has two cs and two r as well ;-)
> Would the words 'compile-time integer integral power' ensure that this
> doucmentation pops up when Googling?
> (Would the expression 'known at compile time' be clearer than 'known in
> Should there be a less formal description of the user interface - perhaps
> simplified from the two actual templates in pow.hpp? It
> looks more complicated than it really is in pow.hpp.
> Would what I might call a 'demo' program show its use more simply for
> novices than the formal test ? It could show use of policies
> - something that may frighten some users - it did me at first ;-) It could
> show how especially useful is using try/catch is with
> Paul A Bristow
> Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
> +44 1539561830 & SMS, Mobile +44 7714 330204 & SMS
> Unsubscribe & other changes: