From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-02 12:20:18
AMDG
Joel FALCOU wrote:
>> What exactly is missing? Is there any particular reason it can't be
>> added as free functions?
>>
>
> Well, basically :
>
> - a large number of classic mathematic functions.
> - a real default constructor. Initialising complex<T> to (T(0),T(0))
> seems redundant.
>
Isn't that what the std::complex default constructor does?
> - automatic conversion between complex of different base types
>
In complex<float>:
explicit complex(const complex<double>&);
explicit complex(const complex<long double>&);
> and overload support for complex/scalar interaction
> e.g :
>
> int main()
> {
> complex<float> a(1,1);
> complex<double> b(2,2);
> complex<float> c;
> complex<int> d(2,2);
>
> complex<float> e(d); // Error : error: no matching function for call
> // to 'complex<float>::complex(complex<int>&)'
>
The standard states that "The effect of instantiating the template
complex for any type other than
float, double or long double is unspecified." (26.2)
> c = a+3.f; // works
> c = a+3; // Error : no match for 'operator+' in 'a + 3'
> c = a+b; // Error : no match for 'operator+' in 'a + b'
> }
>
> As you said, most of them can be fixed through free function ( the
> operator overload, the additional math function) and that's what I did
> for some of my code, but the lack of proper constructors and operator=
> seems to need some intrusive code fixes.
>
The operators overloads are intrusive, too, since they ought to be found
by ADL
and its illegal to add functions to namespace std.
> Maybe it's just me that have strange request or write strange code, but
> it feels strange and counterintutive that the std::complex genericiy is
> not generic enough : I don't see what's different between adding a float
> and a double (returning a double) and adding a complex of float and a
> complex of double (returning a complex<double>).
>
I think that you are correct about operators on two complex types.
However, it is
probably not a good idea to have operator overloads like the following
template<class T, class U> complex<T> operator+(const U& lhs, const
complex<T>& rhs);
because they can cause ambiguities.
In Christ,
Steven Watanabe