Remove complex and imaginary types?

[Daniel919]

>>> The remaining advantage is that of imaginary literals, i.e. the i 
>>> postfix:
>>>
>>>     3 + 5i
>>
>> I'd really like to reserve the above phrase to be reserved to mean an 
>> imaginary number. If one has the library delivered right with the 
>> standard compiler or if one has to walk around the Globe in search of 
>> the One library that actually implements it, I'd still want to have 
>> this particular notation reserved (in the Language Grammar itself) for 
>> this particular purpose.
> 
> I do too. And been thinking along the lines of simply putting a hack in 
> that the postfix 'i' means that it's a literal of type 'imaginary', and 
> the compiler looks to see if "std.complex" was imported.
> 
> This isn't as outlandish as it sounds, as there's precedent for it both 
> in C++ <typeinfo> and java.lang.String, as well as D's Object.

What about a more general solution like
-----------------------------
import std.stdio, std.conv;

struct complex {
	real re;
	real im;
	complex opAdd(real r) { return complex(re+r, im); }
	complex opAdd_r(real r) { return complex(re+r, im); }
	complex opAdd(complex c) { return complex(re+c.re, im+c.im); }
	string toString() { return std.conv.toString(re) ~ "+" ~ 
std.conv.toString(im) ~ "i"; }
}

//complex opPostfix("i")(T)(T im) { return complex(0,im); }

void main() {
//	complex c =      1+5i      +     2+3i       +     6i;
	complex c = 1+complex(0,5) + 2+complex(0,3) + complex(0,6);
	writefln( c );
}
-----------------------------

This would also allow

real opPostfix("L")(T)(T x) { return x; }

real opPostfix("k")(T)(T x) { return x * 1000; }
meter opPostfix("m")(T)(T x) { return meter(x); }