From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-17 07:09:32
"Ken Hagan" <K.Hagan_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:carmco$8f6$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
| Regarding std::complex<>
| At http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html ...
| 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.
Well, at least for C++0x this would be resolved.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk