null references redux + Looney Tunes

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:hac2ku$1nfu$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Justin Johansson wrote:
>>
>>> "Now please name five remarkable complex literals."
>>
>> (re, im) ::= (0, 0), (1,0), (0,1), (1,1), (pi/2, 0), (0, pi/2), 
>> e_to_the_power_(minus j),
>>  e_to_the_power_(minus j * pi/2)
>>
>> Is that what you mean?
>
> (Three of those are real.)
>
> What I meant was that complex literals helped by syntax are seldom likely 
> to improve code quality. Many numeric literals are of questionable taste 
> anyway and should at best defined as symbols. I don't see why complex 
> literals shouldn't follow the same recommendation.
>

I think people just don't like the idea of having to deal with a distinction 
of "Some types can have nice handy literals but others can't."