At present you can write:
1i // same as plain 1
however this conflicts with
1i // complex number (0,1)
There's no conflict with actual complex numbers based on floats,
since
1.0i
is currently not defined. Still, it is a bit confusing having 'i'
meaning 'int' for an integer lexeme but 'complex<?>' for a floating
lexeme.
However writing
dcomplex (1.0,1.0)
is quite a mouthful! You can now write
dcomplex 1
for the canonical injection. We could perhaps provide
imag 1.0
for an imaginary value, but
dcomplex 1.0 + imag 1.0
is messier than
1.0 + 1.0i
However the situation is made worse if we provide quaternions:
1.0 + 1.0i + 1.0j + 2.0k
Both this case and the plain complex one require appropriate embeddings.
Even worse:
2.0 * e ^ (i * theta)
looks more like a calculation than a complex value in polar form.
--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Felix-language mailing list
Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
