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
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
Precedence: bulk


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++?