Subject: Re: [boost] [complex] Feedback and Potential Review Manager
From: Matthieu Schaller (matthieu.schaller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-05-07 19:25:11
>>> but rather the default ctor of the template type.
>>> complex(const T& re = T(), const T& im = T());
>> Do I understand correctly that the default constructor
>> does not set real and imag parts to zero?
> Well, it's appears to be more subtle than we might want
> it to be. ISO/IEC 14882:2011 specifies the T() form for
> the generalized complex template. The language
> specification goes on, however, to specify
> that only float, double and long double are
> valid template parameters for complex.
> And the subsequent template specializations
> for the built-in floating-point numbers have
> default values of 0.0F, 0.0, 0.0L.
> For example, as in my other post, the specified
> constructor for float is:
> complex(float re = 0.0F, float im = 0.0F);
> I also believe that the value of, say, the default
> constructor of float is zero. In particular
> void do_something()
> // F1 is initialized to zero.
> float f1 = float();
> So ISO/IEC 14882:2011 ensures that all valid uses
> of complex are default initialized to zero. Without
> judgement, this is the spec.
> What a potential Boost.Complex should do for
> user-defined types that may potentially default construct
> to non-zero is an open issue.
In my opinion, any sensible number library (aiming at extending
real/integer numbers) should provide a default constructor that
initialize the value of the number to 0. It is the behavior that the
end-user will most probably expect.
There are three options:
(a) Stick to T() and document that the type T should have a default
constructor building a zero-valued T.
(b) Change to T(0.) and not respect the standard. This does also imply
that T must have a constructor taking a double as an argument.
(c) Do not initialize the number when the default constructor is called.
This would allow the allocation of an array of complex<T> without having
to actually copy numbers. A zero-valued complex number could still be
built using one of the other constructors.
I would prefer (a) in order to stick to the standard or (c) to allow
For what it's worth, boost::rational does not rely on the default
constructor of its template type and explicitly calls the constructor of
the numerator with the value 0 in its default constructor.
By the way, the constructors of boost::rational do not use constant
references for their arguments. There might be some useless costly
copies when the type used is not POD.
-- Matthieu Schaller
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk