On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:36:32 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 6/13/11 6:36 AM, Robert Clipsham wrote: >> I seemed to think the plan for complex numbers was to do what happened >> with associative arrays, that is, keep the language syntax, but have >> the feature implemented in the library. Is this not the case? > > No, the current vision is to completely replace complex with library > artifacts. Walter wants to keep the "i" postfix as a hack, but I think > that's completely unnecessary. > > A complex() convenience function should be useful. If anyone has the > time, please create a pull request. It should never automatically create > Complex with an integral type, as bearophile mentioned. For the rare > cases where complex is needed with integrals, it should be fine to use > Complex!int etc. directly.
Sure, I'll add complex(). Regarding Complex!int: I have explicitly restricted Complex to floating- point types. Here is a message I sent to the Phobos mailing list, explaining why: http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/2010-April/000286.html See also Don's reply to that message, it really drives the point home: http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/2010-April/000287.html -Lars