Message-ID: <39201472.2EA877FC@mtu-net.ru> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 19:14:58 +0400 From: "Alexei A. Frounze" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: ru,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: C++, complex, etc References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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? defines the float_complex, > > > double_complex, and long_double_complex types, is an alias > > > for (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" 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