From:	bergervo AT iaehv DOT IAEhv DOT nl (Jos Bergervoet)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: complex numbers, correct ??
Date:	30 Aug 1997 10:33:27 GMT
Organization:	Internet Access Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Lines:	15
Message-ID:	<5u8stn$lk4$1@news.IAEhv.nl>
References:	<5tsl8i$ce$1 AT news DOT IAEhv DOT nl> <Pine DOT SGI DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970827160403 DOT 12574A-100000 AT atmosp DOT physics DOT utoronto DOT ca> <3406B175 DOT 35AB AT rug DOT ac DOT be> <Pine DOT SGI DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 970829111941 DOT 7949B-100000 AT atmosp DOT physics DOT utoronto DOT ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	iaehv.iaehv.nl
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Peter Berdeklis <peter AT atmosp DOT physics DOT utoronto DOT ca> writes:

>The original poster said that this code works correctly on other compilers
>_as written_, not with a little modification and not yielding undefined
>behaviour.  That's why he had a complaint with gcc/DJGPP.

I've no complaint. I'm just looking for the correct way to use complex
numbers. gcc might be a good reference compiler since it's up-to-date.
But in any case I want to write my programs in such a way that in 10 years
time they are still accepted (by compilers, at least.)

It is still not clear to me, whether the complex number syntax will change
in the near future. Is the gxx-compliant syntax final? Who can reasure me?

(Jos)

- Raw text -