This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/20758] operator-(const T&, const complex<T>&) vs operator-(const complex<T>&, const complex<T>&)
- From: "kreckel at ginac dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 7 Apr 2005 22:06:10 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/20758] operator-(const T&, const complex<T>&) vs operator-(const complex<T>&, const complex<T>&)
- References: <20050404213802.20758.kreckel@ginac.de>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From kreckel at ginac dot de 2005-04-07 22:06 -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> Well, Richard, numerical analysis is not a game, ...
Right, but a logical argument is not a game.
> x - (z + i * w) -> (x - z) + i * (-w)
>
> We cannot disregard that, I think: before implementing something else we
> should at least try to understand why "LIA-3" mandates that.
Indeed. Has that standard been released yet? What's the exact reference, and
is there some public access, maybe to drafts?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20758