On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 12:08 PM, John Maddock <boost.regex@virgin.net> wrote:
The docs for Numeric Constants seems out-of-date compared to the <boost/math/constants/constants.hpp> header.
See http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_49_0/libs/math/doc/sf_and_dist/html/math_too...
For example, the docs list 15 constants, but the header supplies 65 or so constants.
Beyond simply missing some functions, the description is so scanty it looks like it may be for a much less capable older version of the header.
Am I missing something?
I believe you're looking at the header in Trunk, and docs in the last release (in which the constants were a barely documented implementation detail).
Duh! Sorry for the noise. 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. * 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. HTH, --Beman