Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!philapd!ssp1!roelof
From: roelof@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (R. Vuurboom)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: struct comparison
Message-ID: <170@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl>
Date: 18 Jul 89 15:32:16 GMT
References: <2874@solo3.cs.vu.nl> <1989Jul14.155312.2063@utzoo.uucp> <2878@kappl.cs.vu.nl> <1989Jul15.210821.7950@utzoo.uucp> <167@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> <1989Jul18.020424.2392@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: Philips Telecommunication and Data Systems, The Netherlands
Lines: 14

In article <1989Jul18.020424.2392@utzoo.uucp| henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
|
|Not quite what I was getting at.  The point of polar representation is
|that member-by-member comparison does not dependably get the right answer!
|Equality comparison on polar representation requires range reduction on
|the angle first.  This leads again to the need for C++, where you can
|define the comparison operation to be arbitrarily complex.

No need to be arbitrary...polar or rectangular will do nicely :-)
-- 
Its a thin red line (and spelling error) between boring and borish.

Roelof Vuurboom  SSP/V3   Philips TDS Apeldoorn, The Netherlands   +31 55 432226
domain: roelof@idca.tds.philips.nl             uucp:  ...!mcvax!philapd!roelof