• 9il (12/12) Aug 20 2021 mir.complex [1] has been added to mir-core v1.1.80
• Dennis (2/4) Aug 20 2021 Out of curiosity, how did std.complex fall short?
• David Gileadi (3/8) Aug 20 2021 Maybe it was too complex?
• 9il (2/10) Aug 20 2021 Yes, it was hard to make std.complex works.
• Tejas (3/15) Aug 20 2021 This is starting to get too real for me
• 9il (5/9) Aug 20 2021 There are few reasons. The main one is that linking bugs caused
• Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= (4/8) Aug 30 2021 Why wasn't fixing the linking bugs considered an alternative to
• jmh530 (3/7) Aug 30 2021 It doesn't look like any bug reports were filed. Hopefully that

9il <ilyayaroshenko gmail.com> writes:

mir.complex [1] has been added to mir-core v1.1.80

Builtin complex numbers have been replaced with mir.complex in 
the following packages:

  - cblas,
  - lapack
  - mir-blas
  - mir-lapack
  - lubeck

[1] http://mir-core.libmir.org/mir_complex.html

MRs are welcome.

Kind regards,
Ilya

Dennis <dkorpel gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 16:44:53 UTC, 9il wrote:
 Builtin complex numbers have been replaced with mir.complex in 
 the following packages:

Out of curiosity, how did std.complex fall short?

David Gileadi <gileadisNOSPM gmail.com> writes:

On 8/20/21 9:54 AM, Dennis wrote:
 On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 16:44:53 UTC, 9il wrote:
 Builtin complex numbers have been replaced with mir.complex in the 
 following packages:

 
 Out of curiosity, how did std.complex fall short?

Maybe it was too complex?

Sorry, I'll see myself out.

9il <ilyayaroshenko gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 16:55:57 UTC, David Gileadi wrote:
 On 8/20/21 9:54 AM, Dennis wrote:
 On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 16:44:53 UTC, 9il wrote:
 Builtin complex numbers have been replaced with mir.complex 
 in the following packages:

 
 Out of curiosity, how did std.complex fall short?

 Maybe it was too complex?

 Sorry, I'll see myself out.

Yes, it was hard to make std.complex works.

Tejas <notrealemail gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 17:03:52 UTC, 9il wrote:
 On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 16:55:57 UTC, David Gileadi wrote:
 On 8/20/21 9:54 AM, Dennis wrote:
 On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 16:44:53 UTC, 9il wrote:
 Builtin complex numbers have been replaced with mir.complex 
 in the following packages:

 
 Out of curiosity, how did std.complex fall short?

 Maybe it was too complex?

 Sorry, I'll see myself out.

 Yes, it was hard to make std.complex works.

This is starting to get too real for me

***runs away***

9il <ilyayaroshenko gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 16:54:07 UTC, Dennis wrote:
 On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 16:44:53 UTC, 9il wrote:
 Builtin complex numbers have been replaced with mir.complex in 
 the following packages:

 Out of curiosity, how did std.complex fall short?

There are few reasons. The main one is that linking bugs caused 
by a compiler mangling/generation bugs makes std.complex unusable 
for us. Initially I have updated all packages with std.complex, 
however it failed to link in a private project.

Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnc=?= <per.nordlow gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 20 August 2021 at 17:02:33 UTC, 9il wrote:
 There are few reasons. The main one is that linking bugs caused 
 by a compiler mangling/generation bugs makes std.complex 
 unusable for us. Initially I have updated all packages with 
 std.complex, however it failed to link in a private project.

Why wasn't fixing the linking bugs considered an alternative to 
forking std.complex?

What are the other remaining reasons for not using std.complex?

jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 30 August 2021 at 13:26:09 UTC, Per Nordlöw wrote:
 [snip]

 Why wasn't fixing the linking bugs considered an alternative to 
 forking std.complex?

 What are the other remaining reasons for not using std.complex?

It doesn't look like any bug reports were filed. Hopefully that 
can happen...