Transcendental Numbers
Travis Griggs
tgriggs at keyww.com
Thu Jan 29 18:21:16 UTC 1998
----------
> From: sqrmax at cvtci.com.ar
> To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: Transcendental Numbers
> Date: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 9:26 PM
>
> I also liked the DD that VS does. But after seeing the coercitive
approach,
> I liked it more because it needed less methods. It has the drawback of
> intermediate objects. But this can be avoided almost all the time,
designing the
> implementation in such a way that it keeps converted results only. Then,
you
> convert when you start only, and work with a single kind of objects...
this
> kind of objects will be the one that has greater coercitive power. For
> instance, I had the same problem when I designed polynomials, because I
wanted to add
> numbers to polynomials and multiply them by objects like integers,
fractions
> and so. With DD in VS, I just programmed polynomial * anything and that
was
> it (but then I had to check all the time what was that anything). Now,
with
> Squeak, I added the adapt and adaptTo methods and the conversion is done
only
> once (and I don't have to check what argument I'm given, so I can
describe
> the multiplication as polynomial * aPolynomial).
I think we're seeing this through a bit different eyes. It is not clear to
me whether your mixed math with Polynomials was commutative. IOW, that not
only could you perform:
polynomial + 4
but also that you could perform:
4 + polynomial
IMO, any mixed math you add to the system, should be communtative. VS, IMO,
did not do a complete implementation of the DD stuff. At least as far as
points goes. In 3.0.1, you could add a simple number to a point, but not a
point to a number. I would argue in VS, that you hadn't done DD (not the
way I understand it). To have implemented it the way I understood it, you
would've done something like:
Polynomial>>+ aNumber
^aNumber sumFromPolynomial
Then, for any potential argument you would've implemented the
sumFromPolynomial: message, *including in Polynomial itself*. That's the
beauty of DD, is that there are NO isThisOrThat checks and subsequent
branches. The traversal of messages ends up in the right place.
--
Travis Griggs
Key Technology
tgriggs at keyww.com
GO SMALLTALK - AND BEYOND!
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|