Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
From: bergervo AT natlab DOT research DOT philips DOT com (Jos R Bergervoet)
Subject: Re: complex numbers, correct ?? 
Originator: bergervo AT causus
Sender: news AT natlab DOT research DOT philips DOT com (USEnet Subsystem)
Message-ID: <bergervo.872866591@causus>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:56:31 GMT
References: <Pine DOT SGI DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970828094953 DOT 7746A-100000 AT atmosp DOT physics DOT utoronto DOT ca>
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories
Lines: 24
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

In <Pine DOT SGI DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970828094953 DOT 7746A-100000 AT atmosp DOT physics DOT utoronto DOT ca> Peter Berdeklis <peter AT atmosp DOT physics DOT utoronto DOT ca> writes:

>> > By the way, if the code fragment you give above works on other compilers 
>> > dump them!  This would be a compiler bug.
>> 
>> GCC supports complex type in C programs also, but there's no need to dump 
>> it ;-).
>
>I didn't mean the availability of complex Eli.  I meant that if the printf
>statement he provided worked the way he wrote it, that was a bug. 

It is the Watcom compiler (v10.5 if I recall correctly) that allows a
type complex (with that name) to be written by printf("%g,%g", z).

This may be nonstandard, but is there a standard now? I mean one that
will not change again in one or two years time? And what version of
gcc/djgpp is required to have the final standard for complex numbers?

(Jos)

-- 
    Jozef R. Bergervoet                       Electromagnetism and EMC
    Philips Research Laboratories,          Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    E-mail: bergervo AT natlab DOT research DOT philips DOT com  Phone: +31-40-742403