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
