Why not just define your own:

   template <floating_point T>
  constexpr T infinity_v<T> = std::numeric_limits<floating_point>::infinity();

?

-----Original Message-----
From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_lists.isocpp.org> On Behalf Of Phil Endecott via Std-Proposals
Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 8:06 PM
To: std-proposals_at_lists.isocpp.org
Cc: Phil Endecott <std_proposals_list_at_chezphil.org>
Subject: [std-proposals] Shorter spelling for std::numeric_limits<float>::infinity()

Dear All,

I find the current spelling for "infinity" rather long:

   std::numeric_limits<float>::infinity()

That's especially true when compared to the very concise way to check for infinity:

   std::isinf(v)

(Have I missed some more concise spelling, apart from INFINITY ?)

Why not have an infinity constant in the style of pi, e, etc.
in <numbers>:

   template <floating_point T>
   inline constexpr T infinity_v<T> = ...;

   inline constexpr double infinity = infinity_v<double>;


Regards, Phil.




--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals_at_lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals