Subject: Re: [boost] [math] Numeric constants docs out of date?
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-09 04:44:12
> The docs are quite nice. A couple of suggestions:
> * In the Introduction's "Why use Boost.Math mathematical constants?"
> section, consider adding a top level bullet calling out the supported
> UDT types, rather than mentioning them in the "Accurate" bullet. See
> attached. UDT support seems to me to be too interesting and important
> to bury in a description of accuracy.
> * Consider adding a historical note somewhere mentioning some of the
> past math constant attempts and why they were considered insufficient.
> Then add a FAQ entry "Why is the header done that way?" with an answer
> that points to the historical note for the problems naive approaches
> run into.
Does this FAQ entry not cover it?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk