Remove complex and imaginary types?

[Don Clugston]

Georg Wrede wrote:
>> Getting rid of them will release 6 keywords, and make the core 
>> language simpler.
> 
> Now, this is the one subject that gets me downright ballistic. During 
> the (some six) years I've been a part of D, I have constantly had a 
> problem with this keyword number issue.

 > As a result of this all, I'm definitely of the opinion that "one concept
 > warrants one word", and that "the same word for different purposes is
 > poison", and that "the same concept with different words is poison".
 >
 > (Do I have to say "const", anybody???")

There's a funny thing about this situation. Here's the background:
* I argued (on the ng) against overloading the 'enum' keyword to mean manifest 
constants.
* Andrei emailed me, basically saying that we need to keep the keyword count down.
* I responded that if we want to get the keyword count down, an obvious way to 
do it would be to remove the pure imaginary types.
* Andrei discussed this with Walter.

Essentially, I don't think that pure imaginary types belong in the language (not 
even in a standard library). And getting rid of them would be great news for 
those who care about keyword count.

The complex types are different; the _only_ reason you'd remove them is to 
reduce the keyword count. That's a completely different issue.

-Don.