On 8 April 2024 10:12:31 BST, Saki Takamachi <s...@sakiot.com> wrote:
>
>I don't see any point in "scalar types" that feel almost like objects, because
>it just feels like you're manipulating objects with procedural functions. Why
>not just use objects instead?
Again, I don't think "has more than one attribute" is the same as "feel almost
like objects". But we're just getting further away from the current discussion,
I think.
>Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by "numbers have rounding modes".
>Numbers are just numbers, and if there's something other than numbers in
>there, then to me it's an object.
The proposed class is called BCMath\Number, which implies that every instance
of that class represents a number, just as every instance of a class called
DateTime represents a date and time.
In the end, a class is just a type definition. In pure OOP, it defines the type
by its behaviour (methods / messages); in practice, it also defines the
properties that each value of the type needs.
So I am saying that if you were designing a class to represent numbers, you
would start by saying "what properties does every number value have?" I don't
think "rounding mode" would be on that list, so I don't think it belongs on a
class called Number.
Regards,
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
