🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4jqvad$eh8@toad.stack.urc.tue.nl> stephan@stack.urc.tue.nl (Stephan  
Eggermont) writes:
> Richard Pitre (pitre@n5160d.nrl.navy.mil) wrote:
> > Why leave out complex numbers and complex
> > transcendental functions? 
> 
> For a very simple reason: there are two equally viable implementations
> Do you want an angle/radius or real/imaginary representation?
> Please consider the consequences of a choice. If you don't show 
> (explicit) what choice you made, you won't have any idea of the 
> run-time consequences of what you write.

This is beside the point. 
There are as many representations of anything as there
are invertible transformations. This is true of integers, floating point
numbers and rationals. 

> 
> Stephan
> 
> > If you don't think its a problem then its because you've never tried
> > to do it. The readability goes to hell. 
> 
> If you think it is a problem you have never tried it ;-)

I have done it and it is a problem but I take that you have not.

richard