anyways, isNumeric sounds buggy, isn't it?
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 02:10:32PM -0700, Timothee Cour wrote: > > actually that doesn't work: > > > > assert(!isNumeric(`j`)); //ok > > assert(!isNumeric(`i`)); //fails ; i is treated as a complex number but > > that's not good behavior as we can't write auto a=i; > > Yikes! > > This makes me *extremely* glad built-in complex numbers are > deprecated... can you imagine the mess that would result if you had a > loop counter named 'i' and the loop body contains expressions involving > 'i' and complex literals involving (the other) 'i'? > > *shudder* > > > T > > -- > GEEK = Gatherer of Extremely Enlightening Knowledge >
