"Paul A Bristow" <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com> wrote in message news:E1CPpK5-00034X-Vt@he204war.uk.vianw.net... | | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Thorsten Ottosen | | why do you want to implement it for C also? | | because I have been recommended to present follow the example of C99 math | functions, | which are applicable to both C and C++. And I have therefore | made a proposal to both C and C++ WGs that seem reasonable. However, would it not be possible to implement the C interface in terms of the templated C++ implementation? | | | 6 Should I assume IEEE 754 compliance and signal #error | | "Only works with IEEE compliant compilers"? | | | | but this is not guaranteed by the standard, is it? | | No, but tons of code assumes this, and portable ways of checking for isnan | and is finite are essential. | | So new question: is it OK if I assume C99 additions (which include these)? I don't have a good answer to this. Do all reasonable desctop compilers actually go for IEEE 754? Why can't you use std::numeric_limits<F>::is_nan() etc for C++ ? | | good to see you working on this :-) | -Thorsten | | I only said I was thinking about it - looks VERY tedious and messy, | even assuming the underlying code is fine. There are dozens of functions | ... | Never mind proper testing ... | | You will understand that I don't want to find that reviewers suddenly have | other new ideas. yeah, I understand. I would like to say, that even though we don't get the functions into the standard, I think a good boost version will become a significant benefit to the community. -Thorsten