# Displaying complex version of numeric type

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/displaying-complex-version-of-numeric-type/11016>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Created:** [May 19, 2018, 5:56pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/displaying-complex-version-of-numeric-type/11016 "2018-05-19T17:56:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![LaurentPlagne](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/laurentplagne/32/10103_2.png) [@LaurentPlagne](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/LaurentPlagne)\
**Post date:** [May 20, 2018, 4:53am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/displaying-complex-version-of-numeric-type/11016/8 "2018-05-20T04:53:24Z")

</div>

> [@Ralph\_Smith](#):
>
> I think that’s one of the costs of implementing a low-level type. You could look at the source for the `FixedPointNumbers` package to see a superset of the (relevant part of the) interface for subtypes of `Real` . I fear that trial and error is the only way to find the minimum needed for your purposes, and the “error” part involves this sort of detective work.

I can’t help to bring back the _documentation of interface for abstract types_ topic. Having to dive in source code as your trial and error strategy proposal suggests is not really satisfying. I do accept that my concept/interface/traits concerns ([Question about abstract type interfaces - #3 by LaurentPlagne](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/question-about-abstract-type-interfaces/10605/3)) are related with OO way of thinking, but I also note that this question arises regularly.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/displaying-complex-version-of-numeric-type/11016)._