On Dec 16, 2009, at 19:46 , Dave Whipp wrote:
yary wrote:
At 00:15 +0100 12/17/09, Moritz Lenz wrote:
Not quite, .abs returns one of the polar coordinates (the
magnitude), so
only a method is missing that returns the angle.
Any ideas for a good name?
Would a method called "phi" with a unicod
yary wrote:
At 00:15 +0100 12/17/09, Moritz Lenz wrote:
Not quite, .abs returns one of the polar coordinates (the magnitude), so
only a method is missing that returns the angle.
Any ideas for a good name?
Would a method called "phi" with a unicode synonym "φ" be too obtuse?
Anything wrong
Moritz Lenz wrote:
our multi method polar (Complex $nim: --> [ Real $mag where 0..Inf,
Real $angle where -π ..^ π ]) is export { ... }
If you put this into a signature, it is checked on every call to that
method and thus slows down execution. If you want a formalization that's
not part of th
> At 00:15 +0100 12/17/09, Moritz Lenz wrote:
>>Not quite, .abs returns one of the polar coordinates (the magnitude), so
>>only a method is missing that returns the angle.
>>
>>Any ideas for a good name?
Would a method called "phi" with a unicode synonym "φ" be too obtuse?
-y
At 00:15 +0100 12/17/09, Moritz Lenz wrote:
>Not quite, .abs returns one of the polar coordinates (the magnitude), so
>only a method is missing that returns the angle.
>
>Any ideas for a good name?
In pre-computer times the angle was called the "argument".
But that offers plenty of room for confu
Dave Whipp wrote:
> The definition of the Complex type seems a little weak. A few things:
>
> To get the Cartesian components of the value there are two methods ("re"
> and "im"). In contrast there is just one method "polar" to return the
> polar components of the value
Not quite, .abs returns
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
> The definition of the Complex type seems a little weak. A few things:
>
> To get the Cartesian components of the value there are two methods ("re" and
> "im"). In contrast there is just one method "polar" to return the polar
> components of the
The definition of the Complex type seems a little weak. A few things:
To get the Cartesian components of the value there are two methods ("re"
and "im"). In contrast there is just one method "polar" to return the
polar components of the value I'm not sure that this asymmetry is a good
thing. C
