On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 01:12, Jack Poulson <jack.poulson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, one could argue that PetscScalar can behave like a custom complex > class, but with only a single instantiation choice through the preprocessor > where each implementation was completely separate. If this type of logic > was pulled into the language instead of lying at the preprocessor stage, > then it would result in a custom complex class like I am arguing for. > Either way std::complex is not being used for quads. > I think the typedefs are good enough for the 99%, but I was just teasing. > > Any way, it sounds like the current approach will work just fine for > PETSc, so I will shut up. The only other argument would be if someone > wanted to compute using some exotic datatype like the Gaussian integers, > but that would require a subset of the functionality of standard complex > class that only assumed a ring instead of a field. > ;-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-users/attachments/20120208/e9186715/attachment-0001.htm>
