Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-27 22:14:47

Mickey Moore <mgmoore_at_[hidden]> writes:

| Regarding std::complex, just about a month ago, I posted to
| comp.lang.c++.moderated about these very issues. The current status
| is in this paper:
| The layout guarantee seems certain, and it lays out possible solutions
| for the second issue. I don't see much that I can add other than to
| give my recommendation on the solution and prod them to pick one
| already. I've already been doing both on clc++m; I suppose I could
| write Howard Hinnant directly, but he's responded to several threads
| so he's probably read most of my posts.
| This is becoming a digression, but my opinion, for what it's worth:
| std::complex should never have been encapsulated as it was in the
| first place. And to justify this, in addition to the efficiency
| issues, there is clarity of the code's intent. Consider:
| 1a) z = complex<double>(z.real(), 1);
| 2a) z.imag() = 1;
| 1b) z = complex<double>(z.real(), z.imag() + 1);
| 2b) z.imag() += 1;
| I think it's clearly much easier to read the intent of the code in the
| second cases.

The original issue was submitted and fix proposal was agreed upon, and
even went into a Ready status (I think). Then, when I was not watching
out, it suddenly came out in Open status along with some rationale I
still find strange. Quantum process, mind you.

-- Gaby

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