Re: this seems to lost (complex norm, abs)

[Levente Farkas <lfarkas at mindmaker dot hu>]

Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
> 
> lfarkas@mindmaker.hu said:
> > hmm, it seems I forget my numerical experiences. but the original
> > problem with norm still apply (there cant be overflow and will be much
> > faster).
> 
> Well, I do not understand why it cannot overflow... The original
> report is for integral types which can overflow as well.

ok. what I would like to say that if the trivial implementation for
norm (x*x+y*y) overflow than the current implementation is also
overflow, so I can't see any reason why we use the advanced version.
may I miss another reason again, but there are a few moew clever 
people on this list who can explain it for me:-)

 -- Levente                        http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html
    "The only thing worse than not knowing the truth is
     ruining the bliss of ignorance."