On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:

Thanks everyone for the nice discussion.

So, after all arguments, we will remove Number>>, from Bloc.

I think using Number>>, for vector creation makes quite some sense. However, we have already seen that we have a few places where we have vectors: Bloc, PolyMath and Moose-Algos. The Bloc needs are smaller than the needs from PolyMath (we need only a limited set of abilities). So, until we have one consensus of having one vector in the image, we can leave room for playing.

In the meantime we have:

1.
BlVector x: 10 y: 20
BlVector x: 10 y: 20 z: 30

or:

2.
(10@20) asBlocVector
(10@20@30) asBlocVector

The 2nd option reads ok, but it has the downside that it needs an extra object (the point).

Would it be possible/desirable to have this as a single primitive backed keyword message?��

(10@:20@:30)��

Perhaps a goal for the consensus on one-true-vector form integrated into the Image?

Except at the moment "@:" doesn't parse.

cheers -ben

��

An interesting thing about Number>>@ is that it is backed by a primitive. This can be quite relevant and I think it would be worthwhile thinking about vector/matrix specific optimizations as well. That is why, in the future, it would be interesting to consider primitives for vector/matrix creation.

Cheers,
Doru

> On Oct 26, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
>
> Tudor Girba-2 wrote
>> You mean like sending @ to a number, right? :)
>
> Ha ha, you got me ;)
>
>
>
> -----
> Cheers,
> Sean
> --
> Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html
>

--
www.tudorgirba.com
www.feenk.com

"Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot be done."