[GiNaC-list] Re: GiNaC 1.3.1

[Chris Dams]

Dear Richy,

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:

> > Since Richy is apparently still thinking about what would be best, I am
> > not sure what is going to be done.
>
> Actually, I'm not.  Sorry if I gave the impression.
>
> As you notice, this binary compatibilty issue makes your patch eligible
> for GiNaC 1.4.0 at best.  If your patch solves a real problem, then we
> should reconsider it.  But my impression was that it only solved a
> theoretical problem that no user of the library could possibly hit.
> Wrong?

If a user has in some *.C file a line like

	ex my_funny_class::my_funny_constant=(exp(1)/Pi).evalf();

would this not result in precisely the same problem as with the line

	ex integral::relative_integration_error = power(10,-8).evalf();

in integral.C?

Best,
Chris