[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: small integers
- To: Scott_Fahlman@SEF-PMAX.SLISP.CS.CMU.EDU, Jeff Piazza <piazza@CAMBRIDGE.APPLE.COM>
- Subject: Re: small integers
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:41:42 -0500
- Cc: info-dylan@CAMBRIDGE.APPLE.COM
- Full-name: John Hotchkiss
>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