Roadmap proposal for 3.10/4.0
stephane.ducasse at gmail.com
Tue Oct 17 09:35:13 UTC 2006
I like the idea of nicolas to remove it and that someone take care of
it as a package.
On 17 oct. 06, at 03:45, Ken Dickey wrote:
> I'd like to raise the idea of changing the complex number code in
> See change set at:
> Current (3.8/3.9):
> 2i isNumber. "false"
> -4 ln. "NaN"
> -4 sqrt. "exception"
> Alternate Code:
> 2i isNumber. "true"
> -4 ln. "(1.38629436111989 +3.141592653589793i)"
> -4 sqrt. "2.0i"
> I consider this a "community issue".
> - Are there users of complex numbers (does anyone care)?
> - Assuming yes, are there objective criteria for choosing between
> + behavior/completeness/test-cases
> + performance (I suspect that "the wrong answer fast" is not the
> way as we can always augment the primOps)
> + complex number user community vote
> + other...?
> I am actually agnostic as to which code base gets chosen, but we
> really should
> get the answers right.
More information about the Squeak-dev