Daniel Frey <d.frey@gmx.de> writes:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"Paul A Bristow" <boost@hetp.u-net.com> wrote in message news:001501c40795$ce631ce0$0c010101@hetp3...
From a very quick study of this, this radical proposal avoids nasty brackets "pi()" by adding a new C++ keyword implicit to make "pi" have the same effect. Considering what Daniel can do, I don't think the math constant part of the proposal brings anything.
Basically, I agree. When I sorted out the VC-issues and finished the documentation, I'll have a deeper look at the ICF-proposal and post some comments to csc++. FWIW, my gut feeling is that the proposal it not worth the trouble.
However: I can do many, but not all things proposed. There is one thing (syntax) that I cannot do but that I like very much:
pi<T>
In my constant library, this is spelled 'pi.get<T>()'. Alternatives that don't work: 'static_cast<T>(pi)', 'T(pi)', 'pi.operator T()'. If anyone has a cool idea how this can be improved, let me know :)
get<T>(pi) Why doesn't T(pi) work? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com