Re: [boost] LWG reaction: Header <cstdint>

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-02 20:44:23

At 05:25 PM 11/2/2001, Kevin Lynch wrote:

 > ...
 >I hope you don't mind me putting forward my laundry list in the math
 >area:
 >
 >-> Import the new functions from math.h (this one is a no brainer, I
 >think); most of the macros (isgreater, fpclassify, etc.) should really
 >be turned into functions/templates (they are macros only because there
 >is no overloading in C, and the overloading/template mechanisms are
 >better suited to dealing with this functionality:  consider: int i;
 >fpclassify(i);  this probably works, works silently, and can't be
 >diagnosed as an error by the compiler.).
 >
 >-> Import the missing functionality from complex.h into <complex> (the
 >inverse trig and hyperbolic functions, for example); also, any
 >functionality in math.h that doesn't currently apply to complex should
 >be applied where it makes sense to do so (log10, the gamma family,
 >etc.);  see also the "future directions" chapter in the C99 standard;
 >otherwise, complex.h obvious is superseded by <complex> and shouldn't
 >come in.
 >
 >-> Floating point environment control in fenv.h should come in
 >
 >-> tgmath.h should NOT come in, since the macros are only there to cover
 >for the lack of overloading
 >
 >-> it would be nice if all the preprocessor macros that define constants
 >(HUGE_VAL, INFINITY, etc.) could follow the lead of boost/cstdlib and
 >become constant variables.

I guess at this early stage, one way to make your thoughts known would be 
to post the above on comp.std.c++ with a preface saying you understand that 
the C++ standards committee has begun to look at which C99 features to 
propose for the Library TR, and would like to add your math related laundry 
list.

Another way would be for several Boosters to work out a detailed list of 
concerns, which we could then bring forward to the committee via the issues 
mechanism that will be in place.

These aren't mutually exclusive.  In fact I hope you will post something on 
comp.std.c++ fairly soon, perhaps after waiting a bit to see if any other 
Boost members reply to your posting.  Later we at Boost can come up with a 
more formal issues list if we feel proposals put forward to the committee 
are lacking.

In the past, the vast majority of C standard library features could just be 
brought forward "as is" into the C++ standard library.  I'm not so sure 
that is as good an approach this time around.  Boosters can do a real 
service to the C++ community by helping make sure sensible features are 
brought forward, but C++ oriented features are substituted where that makes 
more C++ sense.

--Beman