std.complex

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 25/11/13 18:51, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Doesn't sound all that bad to me. After all the built-in complex must be doing
> something similar. Of course if a separate imaginary type helps this and other
> cases, we should define it.

Well, if you want it I'm happy to write the patch.  It's just I'm not sure that 
what is happening with std.complex is actually wrong if it's to be considered 
correct that 0 * inf = nan.