From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-07 12:26:26
Kresimir Fresl <fresl_at_[hidden]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | > You are right, it's not a problem of the interval library. The C++
| > | > Standard says that "the effect of instantiating the template complex for
| > | > any type other than float, double or long double is unspecified" (26.2.2).
| > | > Not being able to instantiate complex<interval> because the Standard
| > | > decided the only interesting types are float, double and long double is
| > | > really a pity.
| > | Does this mean, that we need boost::complex<>?
| > No (for that sole reason), IMHO.
| I am lost: which `sole reason'?
| And don't you think that complex<interval> (or e.g. complex<fuzzy>)
| can be useful?
I'm not saying complex<interval> or complex<fuzzy> won't be useful.
Just write up the details of *how* the arithmetics should accurately
be implemented and do reconsider the standard wordings.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk