unsigned policy (implicit conversions for complex?)

[Rioshin an'Harthen]

"Walter Bright" <newshound at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> I notice the graph doesn't include complex types.
>>> Is there any reason why float shouldn't be automatically converted to 
>>> cfloat?
>>
>> Sharp eyes :o). I was simply too lazy to include complex types. Probably 
>> real-to-complex conversion should be allowed implicitly, too, as long as 
>> the basic principle of preserving value is respected.
>
> Implicit conversions from floats to complex types was disallowed because 
> it caused overloading problems with math functions.
>
> Separate functions for float and complex functions are desirable.

True, but there has been a proposal for this, which would make it work 
correctly, and allow for the implicit conversions when needed. :)

I refer you to 
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/36360.html, from last 
spring.