On 2013-11-24 15:50:46 +0000, Joseph Rushton Wakeling said:
On Saturday, 23 November 2013 at 15:13:22 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote:
I disagree. I was using them for physics simulations. They are very
useful for the computational physics community. Just because most
people are still using FORTRAN does not mean they won't switch
eventually.
Would it cause you any particular disadvantage to use the library
std.complex rather than the built-in complex type?
It would if the they don't work correctly. There needs to be an
Imaginary type and some proper operations between complex and imaginary
types. That doesn't seem to be the case currently. I personally think
having the built-in type is very helpful. However, I can understand
from a language perspective that having "i" around is hard for the
parser.
Also, the argument "If complex/imaginary is built-in, why not have
quaterions also" seems to imply that it should be a library type.
-Shammah
