------- Additional Comments From kreckel at ginac dot de 2005-04-08 22:14 ------- (In reply to comment #20) > Thatis the mathematical question/answer. The real issue is this: > > * in operator-(const T&, const complex<T>&), should the imaginary > part eve be touched? > > there are vairous ansewrs. And, yes we've been using our brains.
I don't understand. What definition of "touched" is meant here? Of course, some sort of "touching" needs to be done because at least for imag(rhs)!=0 we want to flip the sign bit. > | BTW: I've always tought that systems that distinguish between 0.0 and -0.0, > but > | not between 0.0 and +0.0 are slightly broken from a mathematical point of > view. > > If you ask me, any system with signed zeros is broken, to start with. Actually, I'm surprised to hear that from you since I was under the impression that all numerical analysis folks have been smoking Kahan's crack pipe. :-) BTW, I can't find my copy of Kahan's old "Much Ado..." paper. Does anyone know of a downloadable copy? I tried to google for it, but had no luck. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20758
