...

...

- 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 ?

I do not have a strong position between Complex and ComplexNumber. I think Complex is not that bad.

But I think we should be careful about namespace consumption. "Complex" is very broad and ambiguous and could potentially create headaches for other domains that want to define a class named Complex.