Change:
Specifically, and . PR:
Has anyone used these constants at all and want to pitch in for stabilisation of these? These have landed for a while and I'm curious how many people are using them.
+1 for stabilization. (Tried to see if log<sub2</sub(10) exists and found that it is unstable .)
(Mind providing the specific use case? Curious to see if people are using this for anything other than scientific computing.)
to estimate the "&minus;log<sub2</sub(probability)" of collision of two values chosen randomly from a set, which will be used to derive the probability of collision of N values (≈ 1 &minus; e<sup-pN<sup2</sup/2</sup, p &ll; 1, N &gg; 1). log<sub2</subis chosen instead of natural log because the set size is often 2<supn</sup(e.g. u32), but sometimes it is drawn from a set of n decimal digits which would then involve n·log<sub2</sub(10).
One ) is = shannons (bits). Currently the constant is duplicated in .
I can't @ anyone from the libs team but do you think we'd be able to start an FCP for this?
cc .
fcp merge I believe the stabilization includes .
Team member has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: [x] [ ] [x] [x] [x] [x] [ ] No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
:bell: This is now entering its final comment period, as per the . :bell:
The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the , is now complete. As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed. The RFC will be merged soon.
Does this need a stabilization report/PR?
It needs a PR. Not sure if we should include in that though; would you be willing to open a separate tracking issue for that, considering how that wasn't included in the FCP for this one?
There is already .
Oh, my bad. I for some reason noticed that this issue got linked in the PR and thought that there wasn't a separate tracking issue.

Discussion:
pub const LOG2_E: f32 = 1.44269504088896340735992468100189214_f32; /// log<sub>2</sub>(10) <del> #[unstable(feature = "extra_log_consts", issue = "50540")] </del> <ins> #[stable(feature = "extra_log_consts", since = "1.43.0")] </ins> pub const LOG2_10: f32 = 3.32192809488736234787031942948939018_f32; /// log<sub>10</sub>(e)

pub const LOG10_E: f32 = 0.434294481903251827651128918916605082_f32; /// log<sub>10</sub>(2) <del> #[unstable(feature = "extra_log_consts", issue = "50540")] </del> <ins> #[stable(feature = "extra_log_consts", since = "1.43.0")] </ins> pub const LOG10_2: f32 = 0.301029995663981195213738894724493027_f32; /// ln(2)

pub const E: f64 = 2.71828182845904523536028747135266250_f64; /// log<sub>2</sub>(10) <del> #[unstable(feature = "extra_log_consts", issue = "50540")] </del> <ins> #[stable(feature = "extra_log_consts", since = "1.43.0")] </ins> pub const LOG2_10: f64 = 3.32192809488736234787031942948939018_f64; /// log<sub>2</sub>(e)

pub const LOG2_E: f64 = 1.44269504088896340735992468100189214_f64; /// log<sub>10</sub>(2) <del> #[unstable(feature = "extra_log_consts", issue = "50540")] </del> <ins> #[stable(feature = "extra_log_consts", since = "1.43.0")] </ins> pub const LOG10_2: f64 = 0.301029995663981195213738894724493027_f64; /// log<sub>10</sub>(e)