Message-ID:	<39201472.2EA877FC@mtu-net.ru>
Date:	Mon, 15 May 2000 19:14:58 +0400
From:	"Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I)
X-Accept-Language:	ru,en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: C++, complex, etc
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000515184139 DOT 12234F-100000 AT is>
X-Recipient:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> 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++?

I really don't know.

I tested different definitions of a complex class:
Both "float_complex" and "complex<float>" are unknown to Borland C++ 3.1
(1992) and Watcom C/C++ v11.0B (1997). 
Btw, both compilers use "double" for real and imaginary part of a complex
value.

I don't know how this works in recent versions of VC++ and C++ Builder, but
seems ordinary "complex" stuff is somekind of standard. Maybe I'm mistaking
but I lack info on this subject.


bye.
Alexei A. Frounze
-----------------------------------------
Homepage: http://alexfru.chat.ru
Mirror:   http://members.xoom.com/alexfru

- Raw text -