On Sat, 4 Nov 2006, Tim Janik wrote:
> - C++ source files can use BseComplex but may opt to include <complex>
> and use that. (they have to convert back-and-forth between std::complex
> and BseComplex for API though).
after reading some more C++ headers, i have to add that using C++ complex
numbers can not be recommended from an accuracy point of view, from
/usr/include/c++/3.4/complex:
// 26.2.5/13
// XXX: This is a grammar school implementation.
template<typename _Tp>
template<typename _Up>
complex<_Tp>&
complex<_Tp>::operator*=(const complex<_Up>& __z)
{
const _Tp __r = _M_real * __z.real() - _M_imag * __z.imag();
_M_imag = _M_real * __z.imag() + _M_imag * __z.real();
_M_real = __r;
return *this;
}
this has many cancellation/etc problems, described e.g. in Numerical Recipes
and is usually worked around by in math packages, or e.g. the _Cdiv() from the
C9x specification.
also our bse_complex_div() from bsemath.[hc]* has none of these problems
(similar things hold for our other complex number functions), so if accuracy
matters at all, we better use BseComplex over std::complex<double>.
---
ciaoTJ
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast
