[squeak-dev] Re: [Pharo-project] Migrating Complex in a separate
asqueaker at gmail.com
Tue Oct 11 22:21:42 UTC 2011
>>> - 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.
More information about the Squeak-dev