Hello.
On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 21:53:59 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote:
On 31/05/16 14:12, Gilles wrote:
Short as can be and close to math notation.
Another possibility may be to keep long names and to add syntactic
sugar such as
-
public static double im(Complex c) {
return c.getImaginary();
On 31/05/16 14:12, Gilles wrote:
Short as can be and close to math notation.
Another possibility may be to keep long names and to add syntactic
sugar such as
-
public static double im(Complex c) {
return c.getImaginary();
}
-
I have been looking at std::complex to get some idea
On Tue, 31 May 2016 11:12:06 +0200, Eric Barnhill wrote:
I propose some minor changes in Complex() methods nomenclature for
4.0 .
These relate to the collection of methods abs(), getArgument(),
getReal()
and getImaginary() .
Personally I switch frequently and freely between Cartesian and pol
I propose some minor changes in Complex() methods nomenclature for 4.0 .
These relate to the collection of methods abs(), getArgument(), getReal()
and getImaginary() .
Personally I switch frequently and freely between Cartesian and polar
representations of complex numbers in my code. So to me it
