Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com>
Stef, is this an invitation to continue discussion? From ISSUE 1072: http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1072 ==============================================
The intent is that this issue, 1072, introduces some problems which motivate SLICE-remove-Complex. I intend to open two new issues to be paired with (unreleased) SLICE-basic-Complex and SLICE-extended-Complex. So I would prefer people to hold back discussions of other issues than removal of Complex code until I open those issues. Baby steps. OK? ============================================== So, this is an invitation to the discussion "Should the Complex class and associated code be removed from Pharo-Core?". This is NOT an invitation to a discussion of what is reasonable in an optional Complex package. ...
I don't want to be peevish here, but things like:
Note that there is no attempt to change oddities of Smalltalk syntax. E.g. Â (3 + 1/2i) --> Â (0 - 2i) Â NOT Â (3 + (1/2)i)
indicating that Ken don't realizing completely what is Smalltalk.
I indicated that I know the Smalltalk syntax by knowing that (3 + 1/2i) --> (0 - 2i) and indicating I would _not_ change that. Smalltalk syntax is certainly confusing to people which come from other languages which parse 1/2i as a number, which is why I pointed it out -- for people who don't know the Smalltalk parse strategy. I presume that you _do_ want users to switch to Smalltalk from other languages! Yes? -KenD