MathExp: KISS or All-Out?

[Chad J]

I'm reminded of how annoying it is when there are different libraries
for a language that all define their mathematical types differently and
in incompatible ways (all of the Vec2D, Vec3D, etc ever).  Also
aggravating is when there is one canonical type that everyone uses, but
it is a poor choice (char* in C for strings).

It seems like you're in the position to define some canonical CAS types
for D.

So I'd say don't sweat the depth of library procedures too much, but
please get the type definitions (and anything else fundamental) right.
That way libraries that rely on CAS capabilities can talk to each other
without ugliness happening.  In depth procedures to operate on these
types can be implemented in 3rd party libs as necessary, since I can
imagine this stuff getting very very deep, way more so than is
appropriate for phobos.

Just my opinion.  I'm not a CAS pro or anything.