Slides from my ACCU Silicon Valley talk

[Don]

Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 09:29:15 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 
>> On 12/13/10 6:11 AM, bearophile wrote:
>>> Andrei:
>>>> http://erdani.com/tdpl/2010-12-08-ACCU.pdf
>>> I have a small question. At page 34 of the slides it says:
>>>
>>>> - Built-in complex types are being replaced by library types
>>> Are complex types totally replaced, or is the complex literals syntax
>>> (like 10+10i) kept? Keeping those literals may be good.
>> Walter wants to keep complex literals. I strongly believe they are
>> completely useless.
> 
> I agree with this.  It would be interesting to know how often people 
> actually write complex literals.  I suspect it is *very* rare.
> 
> And how would it work, anyway?  Should we be required to import 
> std.complex to use complex literals?
> 
> In my opinion, when the built-in complex types are deprecated, the 
> literals should go as well.
> 
> -Lars

Agreed. I've just looked through some code that I thought used them 
extensively, but found only two complex literals: 1i (dozens of 
instances) and 2i (one instance).