Fixing the imaginary/complex mess

[Joel C. Salomon]

Robert Fraser wrote:
> Ehhh.... why not leave complex and just kill imaginary? That'd solve
> most of the problems.

The reasons for a separate imaginary type are listed in the D docs at
<http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/cppcomplex.html>, referencing William
Kahan’s “Branch Cuts for Complex Elementary Functions, or Much Ado About
Nothing’s Sign Bit”.

It just doesn’t have to be a built-in type anymore.

—Joel Salomon