[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > > replacement `cexp ()'
I think I have to put my hand up for some of the blame there. I added those uses of cexp and friends, but made the rash assumption that if "complex double" exists then the functions do. My intention (never acted on) was to simply further restrict the use of those funcs. Eg. in scm_exp test HAVE_CEXP as well as HAVE_COMPLEX_DOUBLE. (Or arrange for configure not to even attempt HAVE_CEXP unless have complex double, then make it the single test HAVE_CEXP.) There's got to be fallback code for when complex double doesn't exist at all, so may as well use that when the necessary func isn't there, instead of writing replacement cexp() etc (such replacements basically duplicating the double-only code). _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
