I understand(or accept)  the reasons why having a built in
complex type in the language is better but there are times
when someone will need
Complex!(Int) or Complex!(BigRational) and a general
complex template should be in the standard library,
it doesn't make sence that everyone write's his own version.

Ivan Senji wrote:

> I understand(or accept)  the reasons why having a built in
> complex type in the language is better but there are times
> when someone will need
> Complex!(Int) or Complex!(BigRational) and a general
> complex template should be in the standard library,
> it doesn't make sence that everyone write's his own version.

That would be nice. Also a Rational!(int), Rational!(long), Rational!(Int)
template would also be nice. I haven't looked at BigRational - does it use
a template?

BigRational does use a template :-) and it is a struct

and I have tested it woth long and Int (biginteger)
Ben Hinkle wrote:
> Ivan Senji wrote:
> 
> 
>>I understand(or accept)  the reasons why having a built in
>>complex type in the language is better but there are times
>>when someone will need
>>Complex!(Int) or Complex!(BigRational) and a general
>>complex template should be in the standard library,
>>it doesn't make sence that everyone write's his own version.
> 
> 
> That would be nice. Also a Rational!(int), Rational!(long), Rational!(Int)
> template would also be nice. I haven't looked at BigRational - does it use
> a template?
> 
>