This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Change definition of complex::norm
- To: nbecker at fred dot net
- Subject: Re: Change definition of complex::norm
- From: HJSTEIN at bloomberg dot com (Harvey J. Stein)
- Date: 31 Oct 2001 09:47:08 -0500
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> We talked about this before, but it appears that in 3.0.2 this still
> isn't changed.
> There are clear disadvantages to the current definition of
> complex::norm in terms of abs, not the least of which is that it won't work for
> complex<int>, for example. I can't imagine any drawback to defining
> norm as
> real(z) * real(z) + imag(z) * imag(z).
What's the current definition?