The docs are quite nice. A couple of suggestions:
* In the Introduction's "Why use Boost.Math mathematical constants?" section, consider adding a top level bullet calling out the supported UDT types, rather than mentioning them in the "Accurate" bullet. See attached. UDT support seems to me to be too interesting and important to bury in a description of accuracy.
Done.
* Consider adding a historical note somewhere mentioning some of the past math constant attempts and why they were considered insufficient. Then add a FAQ entry "Why is the header done that way?" with an answer that points to the historical note for the problems naive approaches run into.
Does this FAQ entry not cover it? http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/trunk/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_too... Cheers, John.