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