Re: [math] pow redux and observations

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Simonson, Lucanus J
<lucanus.j.simonson <at> intel.com> wrote:
>
> I vote we leave the pow template alone, since it isn't broken and
> doesn't need fixing. (Yes I know my vote doesn't count.)
>

Runtime-wise, it may be fine, yes.

The gain is in going from O(N) template instantiations to O(log N),
which helps at compile-time.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost