Roadmap proposal for 3.10/4.0
stephane ducasse
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.
Stef
On 17 oct. 06, at 03:45, Ken Dickey wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I'd like to raise the idea of changing the complex number code in
> 3.10/4.0.
>
> See change set at:
> http://bugs.impara.de/view.php?id=3311
>
>
> 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".
>
> Questions:
> - Are there users of complex numbers (does anyone care)?
> - Assuming yes, are there objective criteria for choosing between
> alternate
> implementations?
> + behavior/completeness/test-cases
> + performance (I suspect that "the wrong answer fast" is not the
> Smalltalk
> 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.
>
> $0.02
> -KenD
>
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|