On Jun 8, 6:33 am, 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
Correct. > For non-literals the notation would need to support this: > > (* (my-complicated-algo x)+(my-other-complicated-algo y)i (another- > algo z)i) You're conflating notation with operation. > > This is no issue at all without this notation: > > (complex-times [(my-complicated-algo x) (my-other-complicated-algo y)] > [0 (another-algo z)]) The point here is not simply to add a literal notation, but to integrate complex type handling into the math functions. Bifurcating the math functions is a horrible idea. > Implementing this notation would obviously require a serious overhaul > of clojure for a nice-to-have feature. Augmenting the math functions to support complex numbers requires a serious overhaul. Augmenting the reader to handle the notation is trivial, so I'm not clear on why you're obsessing about it. -- 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
