Re: [boost] [math] pow redux and observations

From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-22 21:11:57

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Simonson, Lucanus J
<lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I vote we leave the pow template alone, since it isn't broken and
> doesn't need fixing. (Yes I know my vote doesn't count.)
>

Runtime-wise, it may be fine, yes.

The gain is in going from O(N) template instantiations to O(log N),
which helps at compile-time.