standards/175811: libstdc++ needs complex support in order use C99

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith]

On 05/30/2013 12:13 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:

> What I find appalling is reading "people are tired
> of the situation with libm, so I'm  going to commit
> some atrocious hack".   The proper response should be
> "so I'm going to help implement and test the missing
> functionality".  It's unfortunate that only a few
> individuals are working to fix libm, but such is
> life. 

I don't think the problem is that there are too few individuals.  I
think the problem is that the standards are set too high.  I presented
numerically accurate complex arc-trig functions a long time ago, and I
became increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress.

I am pleased that it got committed a few days ago.

But I feel that the change requests, particular the style change
requests, became too much.  I dutifully complied with the many style
changes, but it became overwhelming.

There is a happy medium between simply copying the *l functions to the *
functions, and what we have now.  I am all for having reasonable
standards, but what we currently have is gridlock that is unacceptable.