Problems with PR 21210

[Mark Mitchell]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> | > | Jason's approach is better; treat it as a built-in, but make
> | > | conversions to it worse than ordinary floating-point types.  I think
> | > | that's somewhat odd, but much less so than making "fcomplex()" result
> | > | in anything other than complex zero.
> | > Once again, you're mischaracterizing what I said.  From what I said
> | > is
> | > fcomplex() would  be value-intialization, and since it would be
> | > treated as an array of two elements, fcomplex() boils down to
> | > value-initialization of its components, and in this case
> | > zero-initialization of the components. Henc fcomplex() is zero. QED.
> | 
> | You can't initialize an array at present in this way, e.g.:
> 
>     struct S {
>        double data[2];
>        S() : data()             // #1
>        { }
>     };
> 
> At line #1, we have value-initialization.  Are you disagreeing with that?

No, rather, I had forgotten that was permitted.

I don't think that alters my opinions about the rest of the situation, 
though; in particular, I'd prefer to see _Complex be considered a scalar 
and be implicitly convertible to/from other types as per C99.

In any case, it certainly doesn't change my lack of interest in working 
further on this PR.  I'm just not that motivated.  When there's a clear 
consensus, great; until then I'm going to work on other areas where I 
can be more productive.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304