std.complex

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/25/13 10:37 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 25/11/13 18:51, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Doesn't sound all that bad to me. After all the built-in complex must
>> be doing
>> something similar. Of course if a separate imaginary type helps this
>> and other
>> cases, we should define it.
>
> Well, if you want it I'm happy to write the patch.  It's just I'm not
> sure that what is happening with std.complex is actually wrong if it's
> to be considered correct that 0 * inf = nan.

If you got the blessing of some complex number expert, that would be great.

Andrei