"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message news:hac2ku$1nf...@digitalmars.com... > Justin Johansson wrote: >> >>> "Now please name five remarkable complex literals." >> >> (re, im) ::= (0, 0), (1,0), (0,1), (1,1), (pi/2, 0), (0, pi/2), >> e_to_the_power_(minus j), >> e_to_the_power_(minus j * pi/2) >> >> Is that what you mean? > > (Three of those are real.) > > What I meant was that complex literals helped by syntax are seldom likely > to improve code quality. Many numeric literals are of questionable taste > anyway and should at best defined as symbols. I don't see why complex > literals shouldn't follow the same recommendation. >
I think people just don't like the idea of having to deal with a distinction of "Some types can have nice handy literals but others can't."
