Feature #3067: complex.c : Question: why Complex#~ is disabled? It's in the doc

Hi,

2010/4/1 Benoit Daloze <[e-mail]>:
>  but I wonder why Complex#~ has been removed ?
>
> I can read in complex.c:
> #if 0
>    rb_define_method(rb_cComplex, "~", nucomp_conj, 0); /* gcc */
> #endif


The above definition of Complex#~ returns conjugate complex,
while Fixnum#~ and Bignum#~ are bit inversion operators.
I don't know a suitable definition of bit inversion against
Complex.

But I also wonder what the comment /* gcc */ means.

-- 
Yusuke ENDOH <[e-mail]>

> The above definition of Complex#~ returns conjugate complex,
> while Fixnum#~ and Bignum#~ are bit inversion operators.
> I don't know a suitable definition of bit inversion against
> Complex.

Sure, I just wanted to show #~ is running for other objects.

B.D.

I tried to compile removing the #if 0 and it works:
irb for ruby-1.9.2-r26319
> c = 2+3.i
=> (2+3i) 
> ~c
=> (2-3i) 

So it is not a problem on OSX 10.6.3

Can someone test on linux and windows? Then I think we could safely enable this method.

• Category changed from ext to core
• Assignee set to matz (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
• Target version changed from 1.9.2 to 2.0.0

Hi,

I forgot to change the target of this ticket to 1.9.x.
I'm sorry if I gave you false hope.


> Can someone test on linux and windows?
> Then I think we could safely enable this method.

This is not implementation problem, but consistency problem.

Fixnum#~ and Bignum#~ do bit inversion.
I guess some people expects Complex#~ to do the same.
They may think it as a bug if Complex#~ returns conjugate
complex.


But I'm not against for your suggestion.
I pass the ball to matz.

-- 
Yusuke Endoh <[e-mail]>

i wrote it.
gcc has the feature.
i disabled it for the time being.
i'm not sure whether we should assign it.
we have much time.

• Status changed from Open to Assigned