On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 10:33:20 +0100, "Paul A Bristow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>None of the material is yet ready for inclusion in Boost, >(with the possible exception of the C Macro values). > >What I would like to get is agreement on the presentation of constants. You mean macros vs. constant variables vs. inline functions? This is another thing I didn't understand by looking at the documentation: the FAQ section seems sometimes to imply you have already done a choice in this regard; for instance: Q. Why not use floating-point hardware constants? A. Because only a few are available, they are often not the right size, are not available on all processors, and most important are sometimes not accurate enough. but then, in another point: Q. Why are functions like double pi() which return constants provided? A. It provides a framework whereby users can plug in special implementation and hardware-specific versions Before that, there's even another answer: "Because some compilers may be able to produce smaller and/or faster code.(For example, note that MSVC 7 Standard edition only inlines "__inline", so this will produce slower and longer code)." Maybe you meant: "because some compilers generate better code with a manifest constant and others better code with a function"? I agree with Daniel that the material need some cleanups if you want us to understand it. Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost