We have:

     1 + 2 I + 3 + 4 I // Head
Complex


and

     1 + 2 I + 3/5 + 4/5 I // Head
Complex


But we get:

     1 + 2 I + 3/Sqrt[5] + 4/Sqrt[5] I // Head
Plus

1 + 2 I + 3/Surd[5, 2] + 4/Surd[5, 2] I // Head
Plus


Questions:

1. Why is this happening?
2. What can be done so that the latter two complex expressions in fact result in a Complex head?

Purpose: I'm trying to use functions defined in the form

func[{a_Complex, b_Complex}]:= ...


where they are to be used with arguments built up from complex numbers, e.g.,

func[{1+2I, 1 + 2 I + 3/Sqrt[5] + 4/Sqrt[5] I}]


Edit: Start, for example, with:

complexArrow[{a_Complex, b_Complex}] := Arrow[ReIm[{a, b}]]


which will not work for the kind of argument shown above, built up from complex numbers. Even if this is modified to...

complexArrow[{a_Complex, b_Complex}] := Arrow[ReIm[{N[a], N[b]}]]


...still the following does not work:

complexArrow[{2 + 2 I, 2 + 2 I + 1/Sqrt[2] + 1/Sqrt[2] I}]


Note: I'm trying to define a function for complex arrows analogous to those suggested in https://mathematica.stackexchange.com/a/230280/148. The same problem already arises with complexLine, among the other functions, proffered there.

• @Bill: I thought using N would helps, but not so far. See my edit to the question. Sep 17, 2020 at 20:41
• @Bill: Yes, N works there. But I'd like a robust function even an inexperienced user could apply, without the fuss of knowing you have to insert an N wrapper sometimes in the actual argument; I'm hoping, somehow, that this can be taken care of in the function definition, by the way it handles the formal argument. Sep 18, 2020 at 19:43
• @Bill: Yes, using the _?NumericQ pattern that works just fine! But to mimic the behavior of the built-in Arrow, I think the definition should be ComplexArrow[l : {__?NumericQ}] := Arrow[ReIm[l]]. Sep 20, 2020 at 20:57