> "Doug" == Doug McNutt writes:
>> Any ideas for a good name [for the angle]?
Doug> In pre-computer times the angle was called the "argument".
And that is still used. C99, as an example, calls the functions
carg(3), cargf(3) and cargl(3), for operations on double complex,
float complex and
> It would be reasonable for perl6 to have .arg to match .angle.
[SIGH] ☹
Obviously, I meant to say:
It would be reasonable for perl6 to have .arg to match¹ .abs.
1] or to complement, perhaps? ☺
-JimC
--
James Cloos OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Todd Olson wrote:
At 14:54 -0500 2009-12-17, Jon Lang wrote:
And really, my whole point is that the implementation details are
(conceptually) the only thing that distinguishes Complex::Polar from
Complex::Cartesian.
All though both e^(i ¼) and e^(i 3 ¼) evaluate to -1 + 0i
it is often u
Doug McNutt wrote:
my ($x, $y) = $vector «·« ( [1, 0], [0, 1] );
After a while I became resigned to the fact that dot and cross
products were not what was being offered. Instead a product of two
vectors was to be simply a component by component multiply that
produced another "vector" of the s
At 11:54 -0800 12/17/09, Jon Lang wrote:
>> And I think there's a Math error in the 4th line: you don't need the
>> components of a vector to do a dot product with that vector -- so it is just
>>
>> my ($x, $y) = $vector «·« ( [1, 0], [0, 1] );
>
>True enough.
>
>> Which makes me wonder if all of
At 14:54 -0500 2009-12-17, Jon Lang wrote:
>Dave Whipp wrote:
>And really, my whole point is that the implementation details are
>(conceptually) the only thing that distinguishes Complex::Polar from
>Complex::Cartesian.
All though both e^(i ¼) and e^(i 3 ¼) evaluate to -1 + 0i
it is often us
Dave Whipp wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
>>
>> my ($num, $denom) = $num.^attr; # $num.WHAT == Ratio;
>> my ($mag, $phase) = Complex::Polar($z).^attr;
>> my ($re, $im) = Complex::Cartesian($z).^attr;
>> my ($x, $y) = $vector.^attr »·« ( [1, 0], [0, 1] );
>
> If I'm reading this right, the .^attr is e
Jon Lang wrote:
my ($num, $denom) = $num.^attr; # $num.WHAT == Ratio;
my ($mag, $phase) = Complex::Polar($z).^attr;
my ($re, $im) = Complex::Cartesian($z).^attr;
my ($x, $y) = $vector.^attr »·« ( [1, 0], [0, 1] );
If I'm reading this right, the .^attr is exposing implementation details
Dave Whipp wrote:
> Moritz Lenz wrote:
>>
>> Dave Whipp wrote:
>>>
>>> [cut] Contrast with Rat which has both separate accessors and the "nude"
>>> method (a name that could possibly be improved to avoid adult-content
>>> filters)
>>
>> suggestions welcome.
>
> Attempting to generalize: what we wan
Moritz Lenz wrote:
Dave Whipp wrote:
[cut] Contrast with Rat which has both separate accessors and the
"nude" method (a name that could possibly be improved to avoid
adult-content filters)
suggestions welcome.
Attempting to generalize: what we want is an operator that extracts a
Seq of val
At 19:46 -0500 2009-12-16, 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 un
At 17:10 -0500 2009-12-16, Dave Whipp wrote:
>define the return value more formally, something like:
>
> our multi method polar (Complex $nim: --> [ Real $mag where 0..Inf,
>Real $angle where -¼ ..^ ¼ ]) is export { ... }
>
In complex analysis it is often legitimate to work with numbers
where th
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
