[Pharo-project] Fwd: OverlyComplex
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Ken.Dickey" <Ken.Dickey@whidbey.com> Date: August 18, 2009 8:36:53 PM CEDT To: pharo-project-owner@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: OverlyComplex
Greetings,
I have done a brief write up of Complex issues that most concern me and opened ISSUE 1072: OverlyComplex.
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1072
Note that there are to be three proposals: removeComplex [Issue OverlyComplex] basicComplex extendedComplex
SLICE-remove-Complex, the first of the three changesets, has been added to PharoInbox as per http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/HowToContribute
I logged on to Pharo's Google Wiki but fail to see how to add a topic/page. Can some kind soul help me out?
Again, I am new to your processes, so any help/suggestions/info are welcomed.
Thanks much, -KenD
Stef, is this an invitation to continue discussion? I could continue.. but i and Wilhelm already stated multiple times, why we think its a wrong way of doing things. I am all hands for having a good Complex support to Pharo, Squeak & smalltalk in general, but just do it in non-intrusive way. 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. (3 + 1/2i) --> (0 - 2i) NOT (3 + (1/2)i)
indicating that Ken don't realizing completely what is Smalltalk. I don't understand why man, who defending the consistency of math capabilities, on other side seems against consistency of syntax , language, class hierarchy & putting in danger all code which using math functions written so far. Smalltalk is not MatLab nor Lisp/Scheme. I fell sorry, that my arguments seem were not convincing to Ken. 2009/8/18 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>:
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Ken.Dickey" <Ken.Dickey@whidbey.com> Date: August 18, 2009 8:36:53 PM CEDT To: pharo-project-owner@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: OverlyComplex
Greetings,
I have done a brief write up of Complex issues that most concern me and opened ISSUE 1072: OverlyComplex.
 http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1072
Note that there are to be three proposals:  removeComplex  [Issue OverlyComplex]  basicComplex  extendedComplex
SLICE-remove-Complex, the first of the three changesets, has been added to PharoInbox as per  http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/HowToContribute
I logged on to Pharo's Google Wiki but fail to see how to add a topic/page. Can some kind soul help me out?
Again, I am new to your processes, so any help/suggestions/info are welcomed.
Thanks much, -KenD
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
I sent this mail since I just send automatically private email related to pharo to the mailing-list. I do not want to have hidden discussions. Now my take on the discussion is the following: - it was a bit too long and the consensus is not really reached so these changes are 'suspicious' - may be removing complex is a good idea. - I see that introducing < is not really a good point (from your discussion) So I suggest that either we remove complex or we keep it as it is and there is a ExtendedComplex package outside. Let me know if my summary makes sense. At least this is the gut feeling I got. Stef On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Stef, is this an invitation to continue discussion?
I could continue.. but i and Wilhelm already stated multiple times, why we think its a wrong way of doing things. I am all hands for having a good Complex support to Pharo, Squeak & smalltalk in general, but just do it in non-intrusive way.
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. (3 + 1/2i) --> (0 - 2i) NOT (3 + (1/2)i)
indicating that Ken don't realizing completely what is Smalltalk. I don't understand why man, who defending the consistency of math capabilities, on other side seems against consistency of syntax , language, class hierarchy & putting in danger all code which using math functions written so far.
Smalltalk is not MatLab nor Lisp/Scheme. I fell sorry, that my arguments seem were not convincing to Ken.
2009/8/18 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>:
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Ken.Dickey" <Ken.Dickey@whidbey.com> Date: August 18, 2009 8:36:53 PM CEDT To: pharo-project-owner@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: OverlyComplex
Greetings,
I have done a brief write up of Complex issues that most concern me and opened ISSUE 1072: OverlyComplex.
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1072
Note that there are to be three proposals: removeComplex [Issue OverlyComplex] basicComplex extendedComplex
SLICE-remove-Complex, the first of the three changesets, has been added to PharoInbox as per http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/HowToContribute
I logged on to Pharo's Google Wiki but fail to see how to add a topic/page. Can some kind soul help me out?
Again, I am new to your processes, so any help/suggestions/info are welcomed.
Thanks much, -KenD
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
If its a pain in the ass for someone with current Complex - remove it. But then you have to ready the answer to people who using it already. I didn't used complex numbers in squeak so far, so my voice couldn't count. 2009/8/19 <csrabak@bol.com.br>:
Yes, and besides (from the traffic in this list), IMNHO too little people participated to claim any consensus.
Giving the main goals for Pharo, removing Complex by now is an idea I also vote for.
This way the Complex>>< discussion gets postponed for a more specific package centric one (which I undertand will happen in the wiki).
Em 18/08/2009 18:56, Stéphane Ducasse < stephane.ducasse@inria.fr > escreveu:
I sent this mail since I just send automatically private email related to pharo to the mailing-list. I do not want to have hidden discussions.
Now my take on the discussion is the following: - it was a bit too long and the consensus is not really reached so these changes are 'suspicious' - may be removing complex is a good idea. - I see that introducing < is not really a good point (from your discussion)
So I suggest that either we remove complex or we keep it as it is and there is a ExtendedComplex package outside. Let me know if my summary makes sense. At least this is the gut feeling I got. Stef
On Aug 18, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Stef, is this an invitation to continue discussion?
I could continue.. but i and Wi lhelm already stated multiple times, why we think its a wrong way of doing things. I am all hands for having a good Complex support to Pharo, Squeak & smalltalk in general, but just do it in non-intrusive way.
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. (3 + 1/2i) --> (0 - 2i) NOT (3 + (1/2)i)
indicating that Ken don't realizing completely what is Smalltalk. I don't understand why man, who defending the consistency of math capabilities, on other side seems against consistency of syntax , language, class hierarchy & putting in danger all code which using math functions written so far.
Smalltalk is not MatLab nor Lisp/Scheme. I fe ll sorry, that my arguments seem were not convincing to Ken.
2009/8/18 Stéphane Ducasse :
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Ken.Dickey" Date: August 18, 2009 8:36:53 PM CEDT To: pharo-project-owner@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: OverlyComplex
Greetings,
I have done a brief write up of Complex issues that most concern me and opened ISSUE 1072: OverlyComplex.
http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1072
Note that there are to be three proposals: removeComplex [Issue OverlyComplex] basicComplex extendedComplex
SLICE-remove-Complex, the first of the three changesets, has been added to PharoInbox as per http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/HowToContribute
I logged on to Pharo's Google Wiki but fail to see how to add a topic/page. Can some kind soul help me out?
Again, I am new to your processes, so any help/suggestions/info are welcomed.
Thanks much, -KenD
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
_________ ______________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Stef, +1 Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 4:42 PM To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Fwd: OverlyComplex Stef, is this an invitation to continue discussion? I could continue.. but i and Wilhelm already stated multiple times, why we think its a wrong way of doing things. I am all hands for having a good Complex support to Pharo, Squeak & smalltalk in general, but just do it in non-intrusive way. 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. (3 + 1/2i) --> (0 - 2i) NOT (3 + (1/2)i)
indicating that Ken don't realizing completely what is Smalltalk. I don't understand why man, who defending the consistency of math capabilities, on other side seems against consistency of syntax , language, class hierarchy & putting in danger all code which using math functions written so far. Smalltalk is not MatLab nor Lisp/Scheme. I fell sorry, that my arguments seem were not convincing to Ken. 2009/8/18 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>:
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Ken.Dickey" <Ken.Dickey@whidbey.com> Date: August 18, 2009 8:36:53 PM CEDT To: pharo-project-owner@lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: OverlyComplex
Greetings,
I have done a brief write up of Complex issues that most concern me and opened ISSUE 1072: OverlyComplex.
 http://code.google.com/p/pharo/issues/detail?id=1072
Note that there are to be three proposals:  removeComplex  [Issue OverlyComplex]  basicComplex  extendedComplex
SLICE-remove-Complex, the first of the three changesets, has been added to PharoInbox as per  http://code.google.com/p/pharo/wiki/HowToContribute
I logged on to Pharo's Google Wiki but fail to see how to add a topic/page. Can some kind soul help me out?
Again, I am new to your processes, so any help/suggestions/info are welcomed.
Thanks much, -KenD
_______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
participants (4)
-
csrabak＠bol.com.br -
Igor Stasenko -
Schwab,Wilhelm K -
Stéphane Ducasse