Hi nicolas

I would like to have a nice complex package.
Do you remember the lengthly discussion that we got in pharo two years ago because the old
implementation was not good. I still have the code somewhere. 
Now if you take the lead on that issue we will follow you.

Stef



> Hi,
> 
> Facts:
> - Complex is present in Squeak trunk image but not used in Kernel
> - Complex is absent from Pharo image.
> This breaks portability of some packages.
> 
> I suggest putting Complex in its own package in squeaksource. This can
> work for Pharo alone.
> I also suggest to optionally remove Squeak.Complex from trunk.
> 
> There are then other choices:
> - the name of the package : can be Complex or Math-Complex (I already
> put a few Math-* in squeak source...)
> - the name of the class can be Complex or ComplexNumber
> Specifically I don't like isComplex, many objects could respond true
> because complicated;
> isComplexNumber is much more explicit.
> We could also think of having complex expressions in a symbolic
> algebra, and isComplexNumber would be true only for a literal value..
> 
> What I could eventually do is publish an old Complex in package
> Complex for backard compatibility and an updated ComplexNumber in a
> Math-Complex package...
> 
> How many of you use Complex ?
> What do you think of these proposals ?
> 
> Nicolas
>