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
