Boost logo

Boost :

From: Ken Hagan (K.Hagan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-17 03:56:54

Regarding std::complex<>

Hubert Holin wrote:
> What I understood is that people wanted the best of both worlds
> (sometimes it's an object and sometimes it's just an array), and in
> this case it could actually happen! What was called for, IIRC, is a
> guaranty about layout, for which language support was needed. I
> unfortunately do not know the current situation, but would most like

At ...

Issue 387 (std::complex over-encapsulated) seems to be what you are
referring to and the final remark is...

    "The LWG believes that C99 compatibility would be enough
    for this change even without other considerations. All existing
    implementations already have the layout proposed here."

...but I don't know the time-scale for things like this being adopted,
even if (for the sake of argument) everyone thinks its a good idea.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at