On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:56:18 +0200, Lars T. Kyllingstad
<[email protected]> 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
My first and only proposal to this newsgroup was about literals.
C like literals already come with a few serious issues if you use them in
a template heavy code.
For example a C++ template (which meant to be a generic solution) full of
"casts" yes casts!, and this is not an unusual practice
The replies i got made me think that D solves some of these.
For the topic.
Having complex literals cool, but i can live without them!
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
