Slides from my ACCU Silicon Valley talk

so so at so.do
Tue Dec 14 10:19:21 PST 2010


On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:56:18 +0200, Lars T. Kyllingstad  
<public at kyllingen.nospamnet> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:29:15 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> On 12/13/10 6:11 AM, bearophile wrote:
>>> Andrei:
>>>> http://erdani.com/tdpl/2010-12-08-ACCU.pdf
>>>
>>> I have a small question. At page 34 of the slides it says:
>>>
>>>> - Built-in complex types are being replaced by library types
>>>
>>> Are complex types totally replaced, or is the complex literals syntax
>>> (like 10+10i) kept? Keeping those literals may be good.
>>
>> Walter wants to keep complex literals. I strongly believe they are
>> completely useless.
>
> I agree with this.  It would be interesting to know how often people
> actually write complex literals.  I suspect it is *very* rare.
>
> And how would it work, anyway?  Should we be required to import
> std.complex to use complex literals?
>
> In my opinion, when the built-in complex types are deprecated, the
> literals should go as well.
>
> -Lars

My first and only proposal to this newsgroup was about literals.
C like literals already come with a few serious issues if you use them in  
a template heavy code.
For example a C++ template (which meant to be a generic solution) full of  
"casts" yes casts!, and this is not an unusual practice
The replies i got made me think that D solves some of these.

For the topic.
Having complex literals cool, but i can live without them!

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list