Declaring Ref Variables Inside Function Calls

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Bill Baxter (wbaxter at gmail.com)'s article
> Ok, then we'll introduce balanced budget amendment for types to ensure
> this doesn't happen.  For every new type added one must be removed.
> We're going to vote complex types off the island, right?   Maybe we
> could get rid of associative arrays as a built-in too.
> --bb

Aren't builtin complex types on the way out anyhow?  (See
http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/std_complex.html).  I always found them to be
quite peculiar, as they really only are useful for a niche within a niche.
Specifically, noone outside scientific computing (already a small subset of
programmers) would use them, and even then, only a subset of scientific computing
people need them.  I personally do scientific computing (specifically
bioinformatics, which for those of you who aren't familiar with the field is
mostly stochastic models and data mining as applied to molecular biology), and I
have never in my life used D's complex numbers.

My guess is that Walter, having a mech e. degree, drastically overestimated early
in D's design how many people actually use complex numbers.  I know enough
mechanical and electrical engineers and physicists to know that they simply love
complex numbers.