From: Paul A Bristow (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-18 16:27:28
| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Reece Dunn
| Sent: 18 June 2003 20:23
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Math Constants Formal Review -
| Also, using constructs like this is easier for the
| programmer. You don't have to search to see if there is a pi/2
constant and find
| out what it is called, you simply use:
| boost::pi / boost::two or whatever.
Previous opinions were in favour of a larger set of constants,
and there was considerable discussion about a set of names which
were finally agreed to be reasonably consistent.
Are you forgetting the very important need that the constants
mesh with the Boost interval library?
For these I think you need pi_div_3, for example,
to provide the upper and lower interval values.
(These in turn depend on the floating-point format).
What about the complex case, for which an example is provided
by Michael Kennistons scheme?
Paul