I understand that this is not normal, but in this case there
is a lot of work to do to create the files and I am reluctant to
do this if the result is not ultimately going to be accepted.
So I'd prefer agreement in principle first to the way of presenting the
constants,
and to the actual constants
- 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:
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
D]
| Subject: [boost] RE: RE: Math Constants Formal Review - is extensible.
|
|
| On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 16:56:53 +0200, Paul A Bristow wrote:
|
| > You can seen an example of extending to a 'new' constant 'gamma' in the
| > examples testFunctionConstants/gamma_function_co
On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 16:56:53 +0200, Paul A Bristow wrote:
> You can seen an example of extending to a 'new' constant 'gamma' in the
> examples testFunctionConstants/gamma_function_constants.hpp.
Either I don't understand the example or we are talking past each other. I
don't meant to extend the f
