On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:06, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad <[email protected]>wrote:
> Does Complex!BigInt (or Complex!int, for that matter) *ever* make sense? I > mean, yes, it *sounds* cool, and I'm normally against introducing gratuitous > constraints on functionality, but in this case I think I prefer restricting > T to real number types. > > Have in mind that not only will one have to disable (or introduce special > cases for) abs() and arg(), but also some of the operations, in particular > division and exponentiation. > > It all sounds like more work, more maintenance, more complex code (hur > hur), for very little or no benefit. > > I completly agree, and wasn't trying to sell Complex for any integral type! My only suggestion was to use a generic template to determine what operators were supported by a type, based on your suggestion to use compile-time interfaces, à la std.range. I was using BigInt as non-built-in numeric type, the only one available on Phobos. But then I thought that the compiler already checks at compile-time that the operations are possible, so I'm not so certain about the need for such a template. Maybe as a way to document the code? Sorry for the noise, I'll let you continue your good work. Philippe
_______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
