Remove complex and imaginary types?

[Reiner Pope]

Daniel919 Wrote:

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

Here's my version from a while back: 

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Suffix-based_literal_syntax_53992.html

  -- Reiner