At 08:37 AM 10/9/2001 -0700, Brent Dax wrote:
>Jonathan Scott Duff
># On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 10:17:26AM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
># > Depending on what Larry's planning, we may weld in support
># for imaginary
># > numbers. While they're mind-warping, in some ways they're
># better than
># > having a line labeled "Beyond here be dragons" or something.
>#
># Neat. It'd be nice to have the "i" syntax as well: 3+2i
>#
># I can hear the crys now though "Oh no! First ``x'', then ``v'', now
># ``_'' and ``i''. Sheesh! When will it end?!?" ;-)
>
>For consistency, I'd prefer to use is: 3+(2 is i).
Well, the convention is suffixing an imaginary number with an i. I don't
think we'd be too well served to go a different route.
> Well, either way,
>this is a good thing for properties to handle. GO PROPERTIES! ;^)
I'm not sure about that. I think the imaginary part of a number rates a
little higher than the property section. It really is a core piece of the
number, after all.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
