On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:20:01 +0100, Don wrote: > Alex_Dovhal wrote: >> "Don" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Agreed. I've just looked through some code that I thought used them >>> extensively, but found only two complex literals: 1i (dozens of >>> instances) and 2i (one instance). >> >> So if D removes complex literals what the proposed name for Imaginary >> One would be? >> _i , i_ , _i_, _I , I , M_I ?? @i @j looks good to >> me, I'd like even having them both. >> >> Compare code: >> 0.998f + 2.72e-2fi >> 0.998f + @i*2.72e-2f >> 0.998f + 2.72e-2f* @j > > Complex(9.998f, 2.72e-2f)
And if someone *really* wants to put the "i" in there, they can just define it in their own app: enum i = Complex!double(0, 1); auto z = 0.998 + 2.72e-2*i; -Lars
