Remove complex and imaginary types?

[Georg Wrede]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
> 
> While I agree that lots-o-keywords is not necessarily a bad thing, it is 
> an indication that all might not be well with the language design. A 
> perfect language would have a very small number of orthogonal concepts, 
> from which elegant constructs can be built.

Lisp? :-)

But seriously, I'd say that once you have a well designed language, the 
number of keywords automagically stays low. But any cheating (as in 
overloading words, for example) makes the language harder to use and/or 
harder to learn.

Almost as bad is when one contemplates the inclusion of a new concept 
into the language, and in hindsight finds himself having decided 
according to whether the concept needs a new keyword. (Hell, I'd almost 
swear I've seen that happen sometime. :-) )

>> (Do I have to say "const", anybody???")

(Sloppily referred to the old const...)

> Oddly enough, the current const regime is the simplest of all the 
> proposals.

No argument there!