implementation of "complex" type

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:20:17 -0800, Russ wrote:

> "Why don't you show us your complex class?"
> 
> Because I don't have a complex class. I merely used the complex class
> as an example to test the referencing behavior. Please read more
> carefully next time.

Or why don't you explain yourself more clearly next time? You post was
unclear, and I was lead to believe that you were trying to duplicate the
complex class.

In any case, it doesn't take a genius to recognise that the question is
still a valid question if you mentally remove "complex" from the sentence.
Why don't you show us your class, whatever that class may be? At least the
relevant methods. It may help us to spot the error if we can actually see
the error...

As for your suggestion in a later post that I was asking sarcastically why
you were re-inventing the wheel, there was no sarcasm intended. I think
you are being overly-sensitive, perhaps because you realise that your
question really wasn't a good one. There *are* good reasons for
re-inventing the wheel, but there were also bad reasons, and given that I
was under the mistaken impression that you had re-created the complex
class, it was a perfectly legitimate question to ask why. You had a
problem to solve, and were asking for help on solving the problem. To give
*effective* help, we need to understand what you are trying to do.

Otherwise we mistakenly think you are trying to implement your own complex
class *wink*


-- 
Steven.