Confusing compile error

[Pmb]

I'm confused as to what the compiler error message I'm getting is refering
to. Can someone take a gander and let me know what I did wrong? The program
is below. When I compile it I get the following error

______________________________
Borland C++ 5.5.1 for Win32 Copyright (c) 1993, 2000 Borland
d:\temp\complex\temp.cpp:
Error E2333 d:\temp\complex\temp.cpp 73: Class member
'Complex::conjugate(Complex)' declared outside its class
Error E2040 d:\temp\complex\temp.cpp 74: Declaration terminated incorrectly
*** 2 errors in Compile ***

Tool completed with exit code 1
______________________________

Did I screw up with the function which determines the

___________________________________
#include <iostream.h>
#include <math.h>

class Complex {
friend ostream &operator<<( ostream &, Complex & );
public:
Complex( float = 0.0, float = 0.0 );
Complex operator+( Complex & );
Complex operator-( Complex & );
Complex &operator=( Complex & );
bool operator==( Complex & );
private:
Complex conjugate( Complex );
float magnitude( Complex );
float re;
float im;
};

ostream &operator<<( ostream &output, Complex &z )
{
float x = z.re, y = z.im;

if ( y == 0 ) // z = a
output << x;
else if ( x == 0 && y > 0 ) // z = i b
output << "i " << y;
else if ( x == 0 && y < 0 ) // z = - i b
output << "- i " << -y;
else if ( x > 0 && y > 0 ) // z = a + i b
output << x << " + i " << z.im;
else if ( x > 0 && y < 0 ) // z = a - i b
output << x << " - i " << -y;

return output;
}

Complex::Complex( float a, float b )
: re( a ), im( b) { }

Complex Complex::operator+( Complex &z )
{
Complex sum;

sum.re = re + z.re;
sum.im = im + z.im;

return Complex( sum.re, sum.im );
}

Complex Complex::operator-( Complex &z )
{
Complex diff;

diff.re = re - z.re;
diff.im = im - z.im;

return Complex( diff.re, diff.im );
}

Complex& Complex::operator=( Complex &z )
{
re = z.re;
im = z.im;

return *this;
}

bool Complex::operator==( Complex &z )
{
return ( re == z.re && im == z.im );
}

Complex Complex::conjugate( Complex z );
{
return Complex( z.re, -z.im);
}

float Complex::magnitude( Complex z )
{
float x = z.re, y.im;

return sqrt( x*x + y*y );
}

int main()
{
Complex z( 3, 4 );

cout << "z = " << z << endl;
cout << "z* = " << conjugate( z ) << endl:

return 0;
}

___________________________________

[Karl Heinz Buchegger]

Jeff Relf wrote:

You wrote,
' ISO/IEC Standard 14882, section 5.5:
" If during the evaluation of an expression,
the result is not mathematically defined
or not in the range of representable values
for its type, the behavior is undefined..."
There is no requirement for NaNs to even exist. '

Riiiiiiiiight,
as if such a standard would not exist anywhere on the net,
so you can't provide a link. Suuuuure. Whatever you say.

http://webstore.ansi.org/ansidocstor...C+14882%3A2003

Too lazy to google?

--
Karl Heinz Buchegger
kb******@gascad.at

[Richard Herring]

In message <_J*************************@NCPlus.NET>, Jeff Relf
<[e-mail]> trolled

You wrote,
' ISO/IEC Standard 14882, section 5.5:
" If during the evaluation of an expression,
the result is not mathematically defined
or not in the range of representable values
for its type, the behavior is undefined..."
There is no requirement for NaNs to even exist. '

Riiiiiiiiight,
as if such a standard would not exist anywhere on the net,
so you can't provide a link. Suuuuure. Whatever you say.
Right, whether you like it or not.

In their wisdom, the ISO require you to _pay_ for it. You may not like
it, I might not like it, but they own the copyright, so there's nothing
much we can do about it:

http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/CatalogueDe...l?CSNUMBER=381
10&ICS1=35

But you've already proclaimed that you're not interested in standards,
so why would you care?
As for the Subject: line in my headers,
People who aren't threading using the References: line
are lost causes anyways,
I'm not too worried about them.
( Yes, Google's threading is loony, I say )
What a strange way of categorising your fellow humans.
What about my Reference:'s line ?
What's nonstandard about it ?
It conflicts with your Subject: header.

RFC1036:
2.1.4. Subject

... If the message is submitted in
response to another message (e.g., is a follow-up) the default
subject should begin with the four characters "Re:", and the
"References" line is required...

2.2.5. References

This field lists the Message-ID's of any messages prompting the
submission of this message. It is required for all follow-up
messages, and forbidden when a new subject is raised...

And I _can_ provide a link to that:

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1036.html

As for addressing the individual that I am replying to,
that adds a lot of clarity, I say.
Sure, it's an open letter, but so what ?

--
Richard Herring

[Jeff Relf]

Hi Richard Herring,

Re: Threading.

No matter what any RFC might say,
No matter how f__ked up Google Groups might be,
The Subject: line has nothing to do with threading.
Threading is the sole responsibility of the References line.

That's not my opinion ... It's just the harsh reality.

Focusing too hard on fanciful standards
makes one blind to such realities.

Likewise,
it doesn't matter what that 300 dollar book of yours says,
NaN is the only appropriate response to a divide by zero.
And hanging is Never Ever the appropriate response.

If you had any paying clients, you'd already know that.

You can argue till the cows come home,
I won't change my mind.

And, Unless and until you show me an authoritative web link,
I'll continue to believe that NaN is the standard response.

[red floyd]

Jeff Relf wrote:

[redacted]

PLONK!

(and it takes a hell of a lot for me to say that publicly)

[Jeff Relf]

Hi red floyd,

You commented, " PLOINK ! Oink. Oink. "

Comp.Lang.C++ blows.

I'm very proud of having absolutely no one ploinked.

Even back when I did ploink,
I still scored Absolutely All replies high.

I read all replies, no matter who they are.

Besides, Announcing Ploinks is just plain piggish.

Oink. Oink.

[Jeff Relf]

Hi Bill Seurer,

You commented,
" Some hardware
will throw an exception if you divide by zero
irregardless of any way you compiled your code. "

Microsoft Windows code, for PC's,
returns a NaN by default, when compiling for release.

I'm not targeting other platforms.

Cross-platform code is a very bad joke.
If you think your code will work, and work _ Well _ ,
no matter if it's running on a Mac G5 with a 40 inch TFT
or a cell phone ...

Then I have a bridge to sell you in Manhattan.

[Claudio Puviani]

"Jeff Relf" <[e-mail]> wrote

Hi Bill Seurer,

You commented,
" Some hardware
will throw an exception if you divide by zero
irregardless of any way you compiled your code. "

Microsoft Windows code, for PC's,
returns a NaN by default, when compiling for release.

I'm not targeting other platforms.

Cross-platform code is a very bad joke.
If you think your code will work, and work _ Well _ ,
no matter if it's running on a Mac G5 with a 40 inch TFT
or a cell phone ...

Then I have a bridge to sell you in Manhattan.

Are you planning on growing up any time soon? Enough with the infantile antics
already.

Claudio Puviani

[Victor Bazarov]

"Claudio Puviani" <pu*****@hotmail.com> wrote...

"Jeff Relf" <[e-mail]> wrote

[...]
Are you planning on growing up any time soon? Enough with the infantile

antics already.

Stop feeding this troll, he'll go away by himself.

[Phlip]

Claudio Puviani wrote:

Jeff Relf wrote:

Cross-platform code is a very bad joke.
If you think your code will work, and work _ Well _ ,
no matter if it's running on a Mac G5 with a 40 inch TFT
or a cell phone ...

Then I have a bridge to sell you in Manhattan.

Are you planning on growing up any time soon? Enough with the infantile

antics already.

I wrote a program for PC and Linux, and tossed it on the 'net.

Googling for it later revealed a few people run it on the Sharp Zaurus PDA.

(It ain't in C++, though! ;-)

Most of the time, portability is for canoos. (Knowing how to be portable is
a sign of professionalism.) But after the first two platforms, the rest are
easier.

--
Phlip
http://industrialxp.org/community/bi...UserInterfaces

[Richard Herring]

In message <_J*************************@NCPlus.NET>, Jeff Relf
<[e-mail]> writes

Hi Richard Herring,

Re: Threading.

No matter what any RFC might say,
Your attitude to standards is already blindingly clear.
No matter how f__ked up Google Groups might be,
Who mentioned Google?
The Subject: line has nothing to do with threading.
Threading is the sole responsibility of the References line.

That's not my opinion ... It's just the harsh reality.

Focusing too hard on fanciful standards
makes one blind to such realities.

Likewise,
it doesn't matter what that 300 dollar book of yours says,
Wrong as usual. $18 online.
NaN is the only appropriate response to a divide by zero.
You've never heard of exceptions?
And hanging is Never Ever the appropriate response.

If you had any paying clients, you'd already know that.
No bite. My customer list is confidential.
You can argue till the cows come home,
I won't change my mind.

And, Unless and until you show me an authoritative web link,
I'll continue to believe that NaN is the standard response.

Believe what you like.

--
Richard Herring

[Bill Seurer]

Jeff Relf wrote:

Oink. Oink.

Please let the door hit you on your way out.

[Old Wolf]

Jeff Relf <[e-mail]> wrote:

NaN is the only appropriate response to a divide by zero.
And hanging is Never Ever the appropriate response.
*In your opinion*
If you had any paying clients, you'd already know that.
And in your clients opinion too, perhaps. Other paying clients
have different opinions. On IA32 platforms, AFAIK, it is slower
to check for zero and give a NaN than to go ahead and do the division.
For clients whose income depends on the speed of their application,
and are clever enough to not go around dividing by zero,
your philosophy would be a big turn-off.
You can argue till the cows come home,
I won't change my mind.
How old are you again?
And, Unless and until you show me an authoritative web link,
I'll continue to believe that NaN is the standard response.

If you have so many "paying clients" , why can't you afford
to read the C++ Standard ?

[Jeff Relf]

Hi Phlip,

You wrote,
" I wrote a program for PC and Linux,
and tossed it on the 'net.
Googling for it later revealed
a few people run it on the Sharp Zaurus PDA.
( It ain't in C++, though ! ;-) "

What language ? C ? What does it do ?

What with cheap flash memory and all,
Today's hand-helds are
far better than yesterday's big iron.

Linux on a hand-held is a real possibility these days ...
even for penniless people like me.

But I don't retract anything I said before,
A program that runs well on a cell phone
will not run _ Well _ on a dual CPU Mac G5
with a 40 inch LCD.

Customization is a fact of life.
Cross platform languages like C# are jokes, I say.

P.S. I had to repost this because
the Newsfroups: line apparently doesn't allow spaces.

[Jeff Relf]

Hi Old Wolf,

You're posting via Google ? Why the anonymity ?

Google is the mark of a troll where I come from.

You asked me:
' If you have so many " paying clients ",
why can't you afford to read the C++ Standard ? "

Although I have a high hourly rate,
I work _ Very _ few hours per year. Very few.

I'm all play and no work ...
makes jack less of a dull boy.

As for the speed of NaN's vs. Hanging ...

Hanging is slower.

By the way,
For a group of guys that proclaims a love of standards,
I'm amazed that no one here can point to
an authoritative link about
the default action when dividing by zero.

[Jeff Relf]

Hi Bill Seurer,

Wow, comp.lang.c++ is full of nymshifting trolls ?

Who'd a thunk it ?

Bill Seurer at work : IBM.COM,
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;

... a.k.a. Red Floyd at home: de4c3138, Prodigy.COM,
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6)

So your ploink was just an insult then ...
and nothing more ?

[Old Wolf]

Jeff Relf <[e-mail]> wrote:

Hi Old Wolf,

You're posting via Google ? Why the anonymity ?
Your address is "[e-mail]" and you call me the anonymous one?
Google is the mark of a troll where I come from.
And where is that? (Due to your anonymous posting, I can't tell)
As for the speed of NaN's vs. Hanging ...

Hanging is slower.
Hanging is not slow if it never happens.
By the way,
For a group of guys that proclaims a love of standards,
I'm amazed that no one here can point to
an authoritative link about
the default action when dividing by zero.

I'm amazed at how lazy you are. You seem to think that because nobody
can be bothered doing research on your behalf, you are automatically
right. It certainly takes less effort to search for "C++ programming"
on the ISO website (www.iso.org), than it takes you to write these posts.

I shall now take the advice of CBFalconer, and stop feeding you..