[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
number crunching
- To: moon@cambridge.apple.com
- Subject: number crunching
- From: chu@server.cs.jhu.edu
- Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 18:19:05 -0400
- Cc: info-dylan@cambridge.apple.com
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon's message of Mon, 05 Oct 92 16:42:21 EDT <9210052037.AA06015@cambridge.apple.com>
- Sender: chu@server.cs.jhu.edu
Sender: moon@cambridge.apple.com
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 16:42:21 EDT
From: moon@cambridge.apple.com (David A. Moon)
...
I think this ought to be regarded as an extension, rather than something that
is wrong with Dylan and needs to be fixed. But then, my own opinion is that
the trig functions in chapter 14, complex numbers, and floating point numbers
should all be removed from the Dylan language. Perhaps you and I are actually
in agreement there; my reasoning is that if one isn't going to do a serious
implementation of floating-point, one shouldn't do a half-baked job, instead
one should not even claim to try.
That's just my own opinion, not Apple's. But I wonder how other people on
this list feel. I know most people who implement Unix C numerics libraries
don't agree with me at all: from what I've heard they evidently think a
half-baked job is fine.
...
I was a bit startled upon seeing the above-mentioned numeric features
in the Dylan spec--my first inclination would be to leave them out
(and I'm a Common Lisp programmer!). What was the rationale for
including them?
Phil Chu
Graduate School, Computer Science
Johns Hopkins University
internet: chu@server.cs.jhu.edu