Re: about std::complex<>'s real() and imag()
On Jun 27, 1:09 pm, huil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 27, 5:35 am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 26, 4:55 pm, huil...@gmail.com wrote:
As for my general dislike of VC++, I think it mainly comes
from the fact that when I try to look into the source code of
Boost (or some other c++ libraries), I can always see
specific workarounds dedicated for MS's broken compiler (among
a few other broken compilers).
Most of them, I'll bet, are for VC++ 6.0. 6.0 was pretty bad
with templates (although it was OK elsewhere---but templates are
what Boost is all about). The latest versions are as good as
g++.
I wonder in what sense you meant by "The library has always
been better than that of g++". I really want to know, because
I don't have much experience with VC++'s library.
Well, back in 6.0, they had a real, working implementation of
standard streams, for example. And locales (locale support is
probably still better in VC++). Before g++ 3.0, std::string
wasn't multi-thread safe (but then, nor was the compiler
generated code---at least in the case of exceptions).
Back in the first couple of years of this decade, you had the
choice: you could use VC++, with a good library, but broken
templates, or g++, with good templates, but a broken library.
Today, both are pretty good in both respects (although neither
come anywhere near to Comeau for templates).
Recently versions of VC++'s compiler maybe have been better their
older ones. But still, broken.
I've never used a compiler without some bugs.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34