As the recent contribution shows the commons-math complex library remains quite useful to many applications.
Following in the footsteps of commons-rng, commons-complex seems like a good next component of math to spin out and actively maintain. I am willing to oversee and maintain the project. It may be that as I get into it, complex will have dependencies that more properly belong in a core library. I propose to just get started on the library and sort these issues as they come up. I would take the following positions as regards this library: - Add syntactic sugar so that typical C++ calls are compatible: yes - Keep completely backwards compatible: yes - Follow the C++ architecture including an Imaginary data type with its own behavior: no - Like C++, incorporate complex typing other than double: no -Eric
