Remove non-floating complex #5984
Open
+25
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Comment on lines
+1329
to
+1330
| "The effect of instantiating the template std::complex for any type other than float, double, or long double " | ||
| "is unspecified. The possibility of such instantiation will be removed in a future version. " |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be better to say "a cv-unqualified floating-point type" (see [complex.numbers.general]/2) which looks more future-proof?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure. I copied that from the deprecation message.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Towards #1078. Follow-up of #2759.
Attempt to provide angrier message than for deprecation, in order to actually remove this emergent complexity someday.
Oops, and libc++ tests give deliberate coverage on that. Or is it more of oops that we don't?