Re: [OctDev] complex error function

[Daniel J Sebald]

On 11/21/2012 08:11 PM, Steven G. Johnson wrote:
> Daniel J Sebald wrote:
> > It seems to me the way to go here is create cerf() and cerfc() in
> > library format. In fact, implement all of those functions above in
> > what would be called an "extension" to the library. After having done
> > that, you could consider working with glibc developers to add it to
> > the standard library. Why these haven't been implemented yet, I'm not
> > sure.
>
> They haven't been implemented in glibc because they aren't standardized.
> Reserving the names for future use does not actually define their
> intended behavior. Moreover, you are not really supposed to use those
> identifiers in libraries until they *are* defined (which, at this rate,
> will not happen for many years, if ever).

Who is "you"?  The library standard can't tell some C programmer outside 
of the standard library developers he or she can't use a function called 
"cerfc".  When the standard uses the word "reserved", the implied 
subject is the library itself.  (I carefully worded what I wrote last time.)

If you were to create such functions, your library wouldn't be C99 
compliant so I don't think there's any conflict.

As for the standard, it says those names can be put into the complex.h 
header file.  I don't know if the authors meant the functions can be 
implemented, or the names can be put in there to reserve them and then 
just issue some kind of warning if some programmer actually tries to use 
them.

Dan