----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Frey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 9:47 PM Subject: [boost] RE: Re: Math Constants Formal Review - is extensible.
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 15:49:05 +0200, Paul A. Bristow wrote: > > > The proposal is for several header files each containing the same > > constants, only one of which would be used for any compilation. (Users > > have been warned against using more than one! Nobody has suggested a way > > to guard against this mistake, but I think that it would be apparent > > pretty soon, probably at compile time, and at link time if not.) The > > macros constants header is the simplest and could be used to provide the > > appropiate value(s) above. > > The difference IMHO is, that this is not a generic approach. During my last discussion with Paul I realized that math_constants<> probably isn't the same as numeric_limits<> (nevertheless I'd try to write them based upon the supplied constants ;-). > It's a bit > like replacing templates with macros. I haven't seen any convincing > arguments against the code I showed, which *is* generic I like that code. > IMHO, but as I > don't have the background of the "long saga" you mentioned, I think I'm > not the right one to say what's the best way to go. I'm a bit surprised, that we currently are reviewing some ideas instead of a library as far as I understood. Regards, Joerg _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost