------- Comment #29 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-07 07:09 ------- Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with "complex type" conversion
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > We have no plan of how those new constructors will interact with | > future new additions. Consequently, I'm very reluctant adding those | > constructors -- after all, these new single-parameter constructors are | > being suggested because of an ambiguity caused by adding a single-parameter | > constructor that did not exist (in the Standard) in the first place. | | I don't understand this argument. Do you mean a future addition to the | ISO C++ standard or to the GNU C++ library? ISO C++. | Is it conceivable that ISO C++ will ever add a | complex<double>::complex(int) constructor that doesn't set the real part | to the value of the argument (converted to double), and the imaginary | part to zero? That isn't the issue. My concern is whether ISO C++ will ever change conversion rules, say from integers to floats or doubles. The answer is likely. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31780
