On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 06:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Steven Devijver <steven.devij...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 jun, 05:47, Daniel <doubleagen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > These notation arguments are compelling. > > > > I'm not convinced. The notation would only work for literals, and how > often would one write literal complex numbers? > > For non-literals the notation would need to support this: > > (* (my-complicated-algo x)+(my-other-complicated-algo y)i (another- > algo z)i)
Why? It isn't supported for rationals or exponents. Or are you claiming that because we support "3/4" we should also support (* (my-complicated-algo val)/(my-other-complicated-algo exp) 1/(another-complicated-algo exp2)) with similar problems because we support "1e3"? <mike -- Mike Meyer <m...@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en