Re: [boost] wrong result in complex pow

It would be very desirable to implement all> conversion ctors generically so that both> directions work... The plan is to try to achieve generally the following:

*Interface model based on C++14 <complex>. * Use C99 Annex G to guide us for the rightspecial values to return for arguments zero,INF, NaN? Are those two top-level requirements OK,or at least a good start, more right (less wrong)? Kind regards, Chris On Monday, February 8, 2021, 7:40:12 PM GMT+1, Gero Peterhoff via Boost wrote: It would be very desirable to implement all conversion ctors generically so that both directions work: 1) std::complex<double> a{1.1, 2.2}; std::complex<int> b{a}; // works 2) std::complex<int> a{1, 2}; std::complex<double> b{a}; // doesn't work without explicit call std::complex<double> b{a.real(), a.imag()}; or std::complex<double> b{double(a.real()), double(a.imag())}; to prevent warnings. This is cumbersome, confusing and a source of errors. Am 08.02.21 um 19:04 schrieb John Maddock via Boost:

On 08/02/2021 17:30, Gero Peterhoff via Boost wrote:

...

That's the problem: the generic std::complex class has generic conversion ctors, the FP specializations don't. I don't understand why this is done.

Actually the generic template specification is redundant given that only float/double/long double specializations are allowed.

BTW the specializations do have converting constructors, but they are explicit when narrowing which is the right design IMO.

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost