Subject: Re: [boost] [math] Numeric constants docs out of date?
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-09 14:12:22
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 4:44 AM, John Maddock <boost.regex_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 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?
Yes, that's fine. I missed it somehow.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk