Re: small integers

[jh@ministry.cambridge.apple.com]

>Jeff,
>
>This is what I was calling option 5.  I guess I didn't explain it very
>well.  Actually, your proposal combines my options 5 (separate fix+ and
>int+) and 6 (big switch at compile time) by using a + macro for operations
>meant to be controlled by the big switch and the more specialized names
>where finer control is required.
>
>I could live with this.  I think having three flavors of +, -, etc. around
>may be as confusing for users as having two flavors of 5, but I could
>easily be wrong about this.  In either case, the complexity could just be
>hidden from beginners.  They wouldn't have to know about the more
>specialized operators (or in Rob's probposal, about bignums) until they're
>armed with the Parentheses of Power and heading for level 3 of the dungeon.
>
>The approach of bundling the desired behavior into the numeric operands
>seems more object-oriented, but I guess that's a religious argument.
>

I favor bundling the behavior into the operands. Not only does it seem more
object-oriented, but it presents a more familiar model to programmers from
other languages.