6 Jan
2004
6 Jan
'04
7:06 p.m.
Hello, On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Jens Vollinga wrote:
Then you could simply (still enough stress?) write realsymbol x("x") or ex r = 3 * realsymbol("x");
Could also be done. I do not strongly prefer one possibility over the other.
It looks good to me, but maybe there are important concerns (speed, style, ...) ?!? -> rsync "main GiNaC developers"
If you have that a realsymbol inherits from a symbol and not give it its own tinfo, is_exactly_a<realsymbol> will be true for complex symbols. IMO this is counter-intuitive. Bye, Chris