Re: Complex numbers & Oakwood suggestions

[Mike Griebling <grieblm@trt.allied.com>]

Hi all, on Feb 2, Brain Hawley wrote (in part):

> I disagree with you about the Low* modules; I think that we should still have
> them. There is no reason that the Low* modules should show the implementation
> details, and it would help to consolidate code that could be used standard
> and array math modules. 
> 
> Howabout I rearrange your code to use Low* modules? It wouldn't be that hard
> and then we could have something concrete to arge about. I'll even throw in
> our polar complex code in that style and have our best math head look your
> code over (it looks great to me, but he might see something I wouldn't).

Feel free the revise/change these modules.  I started them off so we
could get a functional set of modules from the ISO Modula-2 module set.
 
Michael G.