bearophile wrote: > A better question can be: "What's the advantage of having a built-in > imaginary type?" :-) > You can find an answer here, from page 11: > http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/JAVAhurt.pdf > But maybe those ideas aren't much true anymore today.
Why could you not make a struct imaginary, with complex defined by
something like:
struct complex(T) {
T re;
imaginary(T) im;
…
}
This can get you all the benefits Kahan talks about.
—Joel Salomon
