| Genny wrote | Paul> 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;
In the previous review, Boosters suggested strongly different views on different ways of presenting constants. As I have tried to explain, there are pros and cons and valid reasons for wanting all of these. 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. Indeed - so the _user_ needs to be able to make the choice, and this implies that a single representation of constants won't do. | "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"? You could also say that - I'm open to suggestions. Paul _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
