At 09:11 AM 12/28/00 -0800, Peter Buckingham wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > And, unless Larry objects, I feel that all vtable methods should have
> > the option of going with a 'scalar native' form if the operation if it's
> > determined at runtime that two scalars are the same type, though this is
> > optional and bay be skipped for cost reasons. (Doing it with, for
> > example, complex numbers might be worth it, or when expensive
> > conversions might be avoided)
>
>just a quick comment on complex numbers. i would have thought the idea
>would be to treat them as pairs?
We will, and that's because they are. :)
>ie (Real Part, Imaginary Part). this would mean that the standard things
>that are being done for ints etc would also benefit complex numbers. the
>only things worth considering at this level might be ways of optimising
>pair operations for efficency? Anyway, i'm not sure that complex numbers
>is really an internals issue?
If complex numbers are a fundamental data type that makes it an internals
issue. Personally I'd like them to be, but not strongly enough to go too
extreme with them. Support for complex constants and a full vtable
implementation (possibly mostly or all in perl) would be good enough, and a
good example of how to do it yourself.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
