Fixing the imaginary/complex mess

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:36:32 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> On 6/13/11 6:36 AM, Robert Clipsham wrote:
>> I seemed to think the plan for complex numbers was to do what happened
>> with associative arrays, that is, keep the language syntax, but have
>> the feature implemented in the library. Is this not the case?
> 
> No, the current vision is to completely replace complex with library
> artifacts. Walter wants to keep the "i" postfix as a hack, but I think
> that's completely unnecessary.
> 
> A complex() convenience function should be useful. If anyone has the
> time, please create a pull request. It should never automatically create
> Complex with an integral type, as bearophile mentioned. For the rare
> cases where complex is needed with integrals, it should be fine to use
> Complex!int etc. directly.

Sure, I'll add complex().

Regarding Complex!int:  I have explicitly restricted Complex to floating-
point types.  Here is a message I sent to the Phobos mailing list, 
explaining why:

    http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/2010-April/000286.html

See also Don's reply to that message, it really drives the point home:

    http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/phobos/2010-April/000287.html

-Lars