Re: object possible representations (was Re: r28523 - ...)

2009-10-01 Thread Darren Duncan
Jon Lang had some good thoughts on this. I want to clarify or expand on my proposal so it is more clearly understood. 1. First of all, and there may have been no confusion on this but I'll say it anyway: When a class has multiple possreps, one main point here is that users could use the cla

Re: object possible representations (was Re: r28523 - ...)

2009-10-01 Thread Jon Lang
Some further thoughts: Essentially, this could be done as an extension of the versioning system. The difference between "possrep" versioning and normal versioning would lie in the means by which the possrep dimension would be resolved if not specified. Namely, the compiler would make the decisio

Re: object possible representations (was Re: r28523 - ...)

2009-10-01 Thread Jon Lang
Darren Duncan wrote: > Jon Lang wrote: >> I'm not sure that I feel comfortable locking C into >> rectilinear coordinates as its internal storage method, as there will >> be cases where the code operates more smoothly if you're using polar >> coordinates to store the numbers: we should leave the inn

object possible representations (was Re: r28523 - ...)

2009-10-01 Thread Darren Duncan
Jon Lang wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:58 PM, wrote: +C is an immutable type. Each C object stores two numbers, +the real and imaginary part. For all practical purposes a C with +a C in real or imaginary part may be considered a C itself (and +C<(NaN + 1i) ~~ NaN> is C). I'm not sure that