std.complex

[QAston]

On Sunday, 24 November 2013 at 17:35:34 UTC, Shammah Chancellor 
wrote:
> On 2013-11-24 15:50:46 +0000, Joseph Rushton Wakeling said:
>
>> On Saturday, 23 November 2013 at 15:13:22 UTC, Shammah 
>> Chancellor wrote:
>>> I disagree.  I was using them for physics simulations.   They 
>>> are very useful for the computational physics community.   
>>> Just because most people are still using FORTRAN does not 
>>> mean they won't switch eventually.
>> 
>> Would it cause you any particular disadvantage to use the 
>> library std.complex rather than the built-in complex type?
>
> It would if the they don't work correctly.  There needs to be 
> an Imaginary type and some proper operations between complex 
> and imaginary types.  That doesn't seem to be the case 
> currently.  I personally think having the built-in type is very 
> helpful.  However, I can understand from a language perspective 
> that having "i" around is hard for the parser.
>
> Also, the argument "If complex/imaginary is built-in, why not 
> have quaterions also" seems to imply that it should be a 
> library type.
>
> -Shammah

You can have im!5.0 in a library type, to me it sounds good 
enough.