Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mimsy!eneevax!umd5!brl-adm!adm!lyle@ads.arpa
From: lyle@ads.arpa
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Complex type ?
Message-ID: <7264@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 6-May-87 16:17:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-adm.7264
Posted: Wed May  6 16:17:58 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 8-May-87 04:15:22 EDT
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 47


	C is an evolving language.  I will make a possibly sacrilegious
suggestion that the type "complex" be incorporated.  After all, such a
type is now a part of LISP (Common).

	The purest says:" Well, one can just define a structure complex."

	(Many years ago I was discussing with a friend the relative
utility of FORTRAN and ALGOL for numerical work.  I mentioned that
ALGOL did not have a type COMPLEX.  He said, "Well you can just write
a little procedure.")

	However, the resultant code form using structures and func-
tions is much less readable and harder to check.  (I have enough
trouble with "pow (x,y)" compared with x**y.)

...

struct complex
{
double re;
double im;
};


{
...

struct complex complex_mult();

struct complex A, B, C;
struct complex P;

P = complex_mult(A, complex_mult(B, C));

...

}

	One could use a shorter form, such as "cm()" instead of
"complex_mult()", but that doesn't really get to the point.

P = A * B * C;

is more easily read and checked.

(I am new to "info-c; perhaps this topic has come up before.)