I really enjoyed this subject! I did Accelerated Mathematics 2 rather than Real Analysis, so I did have 6 months to a year longer than most students to get to grips with the notion of mathematical rigour, but quite frankly rigour wasn't really required in Complex Analysis (unless Penny Wightwick was your tutor). Especially with Peter Forrester, who is a mathematical physicist, being the lecturer, the course had a strong applied mathematics-y flavour to it in comparison to previous years, which would certainly be refreshing for those still licking their wounds from the highly formal manner in which Real Analysis was taught.
After reviewing complex number arithmetic, we dove headlong into complex function theory, defining the usual concepts of limits, continuity and differentiability (with very little focus on Messrs Epsilon and Delta), thereby introducing the key concept of analyticity. After some topology (which was explained in a pretty hand-wave-y way!) we explored the various exponential functions and how singularities occur in complex functions. Then onto sequences and series, which was pretty standard stuff if you remembered how real series worked, with some interesting asides along the way. However, the truly interesting theory didn't materialise until the following topic - integration. The theory of contour integration - through Cauchy's theorem, Cauchy's integral formula (in Complex Analysis, we differentiate stuff by integrating them!) and residues - represented some of the most eye-opening concepts that I have learned in mathematics so far. Along with the associated theory of Laurent series and meromorphic functions, these provided vital links to other fields of mathematics such as vector calculus, partial differential equations and algebra (we found an 'easy' proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra). Finally, there was a brief jaunt into the world of conformal mapping, while the final week's topic of special functions (Gamma, Beta and Riemann Zeta) was omitted to allow for revision.
The main drawback of this subject, though, was the delivery of the lectures. In the very first lecture, Peter told us that he hadn't taught this subject for around 20 years, and it really did show. With all respect to Peter, it often seemed like he was clueless about how to finish off a proof and even as if he was winging it through a lecture. In addition, quite a few topics were skipped over, and the teaching of later topics was a dog's breakfast. A frequent complaint (though not mine) of the assignments was that while they weren't overly difficult, the connection to the subject's theory was rather tenuous. The exam wasn't too bad either, but some complained that it was too long, and because the course was being taught by a lecturer who hadn't coordinated this course since before most of us were born, it was also significantly different from those from previous years. To be fair, though, he did give adequate warning about this, and even omitted the Week 12 material in order to give us problem sheets roughly indicative of the exam. He was also extremely helpful in fielding our enquiries, somewhat more so than most of my previous maths lecturers, hence my docking of only half a mark
In short, the subject was highly interesting, but the experience perhaps left much to be desired.