Comparison of Imaginary types

[Nick Treleaven]

On Saturday, 11 July 2026 at 08:33:13 UTC, Damian McGuckin wrote:
> On Friday, 10 July 2026 at 15:21:08 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
>> Also Don made an argument why imaginary types are not needed 
>> in D:
>> https://forum.dlang.org/post/fmg01c$253i$1@digitalmars.com
>
> Interesting arguments. Not sure I agree with all of it. What is 
> done in C99 (and even C23) reflects the mathematics, so it is 
> not a hack.

I forgot to reply to that. Don actually said C and D are 
different:

> D can avoid the need for a pure imaginary type, because *D 
> guarantees constant folding, whereas C does not*.