Date:	Mon, 15 May 2000 18:44:58 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	"Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: C++, complex, etc
In-Reply-To:	<391FA933.8131C54F@mtu-net.ru>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000515184139.12234F-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Mon, 15 May 2000, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:

> > What do you need to know? <complex> defines the float_complex,
> > double_complex, and long_double_complex types, <complex.h> is an alias
> > for <complex> (kept for back-compatibility), and <_Complex.h>
> > (originally Complex.h) is the libg++-specific header that defines the
> > Complex type.
> 
> Does that mean that there is wrong information in all _3_ books about C++ I
> have here?

I don't know enough standard C++ to be 100% sure, but it's possible that 
this is one of the last-minute additions to the C++ standard which your 
books didn't yet catch.

It's also possible that those books are based on a specific compiler even 
though they don't say it.  It happened before.

Can someone who knows please tell whether double_complex etc. types are 
standard C++?

- Raw text -