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

From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-03 07:46:17

 > ...
 >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otherwise, complex.h obvious is superseded by 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.
<

That all looks very sensible to me - the "function like macros" in C99
math.h really do need to be overloaded functions in C++.  Off the top of my
head I don't see any incompatibilities with C either?

BTW the dinkum docs suggest that these are implemented as macros in the
dinkumware lib even for C++ programs.

- John Maddock
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/john_maddock/