I think I found a Synopsis fossil, in light of revision 29931, but wanted to be
Date: 2010-03-03 18:34:04 +0100 (Wed, 03 Mar 2010)
New Revision: 29931
[S02] remove 1/2 and +2-3i literal forms, now rely on angle dwimmery for
or constant folding otherwise.
Complex literals are similarly indicated by writing an addition or subtraction
-two real numbers without spaces:
+two real numbers (again, without spaces around the operators) inside angles:
+ < -3-1i >
As with rational literals, constant folding would produce the same
complex number, but this form parses as a single term, ignoring
Basically, I found this line in Synopsis 2, in the section talking about
So the question is about whether this example should be kept as still valid code
or whether it is now invalid and a fossil?
I suspect it *is* still valid, at least if this by itself:
... is a valid literal denoting <0+3i>, but wanted to check.
-- Darren Duncan