Remove complex and imaginary types?

[renoX]

Reiner Pope a écrit :
> Daniel919 Wrote:
> 
>>>>> The remaining advantage is that of imaginary literals, i.e. the i 
>>>>> postfix:
>>>>>
>>>>>     3 + 5i
>>>> I'd really like to reserve the above phrase to be reserved to mean an 
>>>> imaginary number. If one has the library delivered right with the 
>>>> standard compiler or if one has to walk around the Globe in search of 
>>>> the One library that actually implements it, I'd still want to have 
>>>> this particular notation reserved (in the Language Grammar itself) for 
>>>> this particular purpose.
>>> I do too. And been thinking along the lines of simply putting a hack in 
>>> that the postfix 'i' means that it's a literal of type 'imaginary', and 
>>> the compiler looks to see if "std.complex" was imported.
>>>
>>> This isn't as outlandish as it sounds, as there's precedent for it both 
>>> in C++ <typeinfo> and java.lang.String, as well as D's Object.
>> What about a more general solution like
>> -----------------------------
>> import std.stdio, std.conv;
>>
>> struct complex {
>>      real re;
>>      real im;
>>      complex opAdd(real r) { return complex(re+r, im); }
>>      complex opAdd_r(real r) { return complex(re+r, im); }
>>      complex opAdd(complex c) { return complex(re+c.re, im+c.im); }
>>      string toString() { return std.conv.toString(re) ~ "+" ~ 
>> std.conv.toString(im) ~ "i"; }
>> }
>>
>> //complex opPostfix("i")(T)(T im) { return complex(0,im); }
>>
>> void main() {
>> //    complex c =      1+5i      +     2+3i       +     6i;
>>      complex c = 1+complex(0,5) + 2+complex(0,3) + complex(0,6);
>>      writefln( c );
>> }
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> This would also allow
>>
>> real opPostfix("L")(T)(T x) { return x; }
>>
>> T opPostfix("k")(T)(T x) { return x * 1000; }
>> meter opPostfix("m")(T)(T x) { return meter(x); }
> 
> Here's my version from a while back: 
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Suffix-based_literal_syntax_53992.html
> 
>   -- Reiner

I like a lot all those proposal for adding suffix based literal, but I'm 
afraid that these could interfere(sp?) with the ones already existing in 
the language, so I wonder if 'library added' suffix shouldn't have an 
operator to distinguish them for the language one.

I'm thinking about the underscore '_': 5.8f_km would be replaced by 
km(5.8f), if there is no operator, there are some risk of ambiguity: 
"5.8fm" is-it 5.8f meters or 5.8 femtometers?

With 5.8f_m and 5.8_fm you remove the ambiguity and the _ is visually 
'pleasing' so this syntax would still be used.

Regards,
renoX