Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:45 AM, Robert Bradshaw > <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: >> On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: >> >>> Well, I'm hacking on supporting C++ complex, but have some questions >>> >>> Robert: why did you bothered about using 'infix' operators instead of >>> using macros when c99 complex is on? Just to generate more readable C >>> code? Could this be changed to always use the macros? >> >> Yep, that's probably why. Is there an advantage to always using the >> macros. >> > > Was that a question? Then I think yes, we could potentially select at > C compile type the kind of complex numbers to use. For this to be > possible, the rest of the code has to be identical...Well, this would > require to always promote int/float to complexes, but for C99/C++ that > can also be done with a macro (no need at all of using a inline > function as currently) > >> >> So, there's really three types of complex numbers: >> >> - Native (struct-based) >> - c99 (valid for C) >> - c++ (valid for C++) >> > > Yes, but C99 complexes could be used in C++ (for example, IBM > compilers seems to let you use C99 complexes in C++, look at the very > end of: > http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/comphelp/v7v91/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.vacpp7a.doc/language/ref/clrc03complex_types.htm) > I'm pretty sure gcc won't allow this.
_______________________________________________ Cython-dev mailing list Cython-dev@codespeak.net http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev
