• Lars T. Kyllingstad (8/8) Dec 07 2009 The decision to dump the built-in complex and imaginary types in favour
• KennyTM~ (3/11) Dec 07 2009 All opBinary-s (opAdd, etc.) aren't implemented now, so e.g. z+w won't
• Ali Cehreli (5/17) Dec 07 2009 An introductory article on Digital Mars explains the rationale behind th...
• Andrei Alexandrescu (6/14) Dec 07 2009 I don't know.
• Lars T. Kyllingstad (15/33) Dec 08 2009 The big difference is in assignments:

"Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:

The decision to dump the built-in complex and imaginary types in favour 
of std.complex.Complex was made a long time ago, but nothing has 
happened yet. So I have a few questions:

1. Is this still planned for D2?

2. In that case, when will it happen?

3. Are there any reasons why I shouldn't replace cxxx with Complex!xxx 
in my code right away?

-Lars

KennyTM~ <kennytm gmail.com> writes:

On Dec 7, 09 22:40, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
 The decision to dump the built-in complex and imaginary types in favour
 of std.complex.Complex was made a long time ago, but nothing has
 happened yet. So I have a few questions:

 1. Is this still planned for D2?

 2. In that case, when will it happen?

 3. Are there any reasons why I shouldn't replace cxxx with Complex!xxx
 in my code right away?

All opBinary-s (opAdd, etc.) aren't implemented now, so e.g. z+w won't 
compile for Complex!T.

 -Lars

Ali Cehreli <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:

 The decision to dump the built-in complex and imaginary types in favour 
 of std.complex.Complex was made a long time ago, but nothing has 
 happened yet. So I have a few questions:
 
 1. Is this still planned for D2?
 
 2. In that case, when will it happen?
 
 3. Are there any reasons why I shouldn't replace cxxx with Complex!xxx 
 in my code right away?
 
 -Lars

An introductory article on Digital Mars explains the rationale behind the
complex types and quotes W. Kahan: "The language of pairs is incorrect for
Complex Arithmetic; it needs the Imaginary type."

  http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/cppcomplex.html

The library types can and do work as well, probably because "Appendix G of the
C99 standard has recommendations for dealing with this problem."

Ali

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
 The decision to dump the built-in complex and imaginary types in favour 
 of std.complex.Complex was made a long time ago, but nothing has 
 happened yet. So I have a few questions:
 
 1. Is this still planned for D2?

Far as I know, yes.

 2. In that case, when will it happen?

I don't know.

 3. Are there any reasons why I shouldn't replace cxxx with Complex!xxx 
 in my code right away?

I think we'll have to provide aliases for the existing complex types, so 
your code should continue functioning after the change.


Andrei

"Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
 The decision to dump the built-in complex and imaginary types in 
 favour of std.complex.Complex was made a long time ago, but nothing 
 has happened yet. So I have a few questions:

 1. Is this still planned for D2?

 
 Far as I know, yes.
 
 2. In that case, when will it happen?

 
 I don't know.
 
 3. Are there any reasons why I shouldn't replace cxxx with Complex!xxx 
 in my code right away?

 
 I think we'll have to provide aliases for the existing complex types, so 
 your code should continue functioning after the change.

The big difference is in assignments:

   real a, b;
   creal x = a + b*1.0i;
   auto y = Complex!real(a, b);

   // Also, this doesn't work with current complex types, because
   // creal.re and creal.im aren't lvalues:
   Complex!real z;
   z.re = a;
   z.im = b;

But it's not a problem, really. Since Complex!T is binary compatible 
with the current complex types I can just insert a few casts here and 
there. I just wanted to make sure I wouldn't have to go back to creal & 
co later.

-Lars