, for vector creation
Hi, As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension: , aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector. We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector. , is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator. Please voice your concerns. Cheers, Doru -- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Every thing should have the right to be different."
For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
But in both cases #, is sent to FileReference/Petit parser instance, so it is contained. You would use it on a (generic) Number and tie it to specific Bloc meaning. Maybe have a polymorphic Vector in regular Pharo (I would imagine that PolyMath could also make use of that)? Peter
Hi, Vector is not Bloc-sepcific. We just need it in Bloc and because there wasnât any, we now have one in Bloc. But, it can be pulled out without any issues. Cheers, Doru
On Oct 25, 2017, at 8:21 PM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
But in both cases #, is sent to FileReference/Petit parser instance, so it is contained. You would use it on a (generic) Number and tie it to specific Bloc meaning. Maybe have a polymorphic Vector in regular Pharo (I would imagine that PolyMath could also make use of that)?
Peter
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Obvious things are difficult to teach."
In Polymath I guess that the vectors are longer. But if I'm correct it is #( 12 23) asVector. Doru did you look at Jun because Jun introduced 3DPoint and I wonder if they did not introduce Vector? What would be the alternatives for vector? Any idea how this is done in other languages 1~>2 1!2 1-}2 Stef On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
Vector is not Bloc-sepcific. We just need it in Bloc and because there wasnât any, we now have one in Bloc. But, it can be pulled out without any issues.
Cheers, Doru
On Oct 25, 2017, at 8:21 PM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
But in both cases #, is sent to FileReference/Petit parser instance, so it is contained. You would use it on a (generic) Number and tie it to specific Bloc meaning. Maybe have a polymorphic Vector in regular Pharo (I would imagine that PolyMath could also make use of that)?
Peter
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Obvious things are difficult to teach."
2017-10-25 22:53 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.com>:
In Polymath I guess that the vectors are longer. But if I'm correct it is #( 12 23) asVector.
And I am wondering, Polymath already implements linear algebra. Right? Can we just use it in Bloc?
Doru did you look at Jun because Jun introduced 3DPoint and I wonder if they did not introduce Vector?
What would be the alternatives for vector? Any idea how this is done in other languages
1~>2 1!2 1-}2
Stef
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
Vector is not Bloc-sepcific. We just need it in Bloc and because there wasnât any, we now have one in Bloc. But, it can be pulled out without any issues.
Cheers, Doru
On Oct 25, 2017, at 8:21 PM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
But in both cases #, is sent to FileReference/Petit parser instance, so it is contained. You would use it on a (generic) Number and tie it to specific Bloc meaning. Maybe have a polymorphic Vector in regular Pharo (I would imagine that PolyMath could also make use of that)?
Peter
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Obvious things are difficult to teach."
I would note that 1 ! 2 creates/extends an ETuple in eLinda. - HH On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 16:53, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.com> wrote:
In Polymath I guess that the vectors are longer. But if I'm correct it is #( 12 23) asVector. Doru did you look at Jun because Jun introduced 3DPoint and I wonder if they did not introduce Vector? What would be the alternatives for vector? Any idea how this is done in other languages 1~>2 1!2 1-}2 Stef On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi, > > Vector is not Bloc-sepcific. We just need it in Bloc and because there wasnât any, we now have one in Bloc. But, it can be pulled out without any issues. > > Cheers, > Doru > > >> On Oct 25, 2017, at 8:21 PM, Peter Uhnák wrote: >> >> For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator. >> >> But in both cases #, is sent to FileReference/Petit parser instance, so it is contained. >> You would use it on a (generic) Number and tie it to specific Bloc meaning. Maybe have a polymorphic Vector in regular Pharo (I would imagine that PolyMath could also make use of that)? >> >> Peter > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Obvious things are difficult to teach." > > > > > @gmail.com> @tudorgirba.com>
Hi,
On Oct 25, 2017, at 10:53 PM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.com> wrote:
In Polymath I guess that the vectors are longer.
Vectors can be longer. We just use 2D and 3D in Bloc.
But if I'm correct it is #( 12 23) asVector.
I like this one. Weâll definitely take a look.
Doru did you look at Jun because Jun introduced 3DPoint and I wonder if they did not introduce Vector?
I did not look at that.
What would be the alternatives for vector? Any idea how this is done in other languages
1~>2 1!2 1-}2
Nope. Doru
Stef
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 8:56 PM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
Vector is not Bloc-sepcific. We just need it in Bloc and because there wasnât any, we now have one in Bloc. But, it can be pulled out without any issues.
Cheers, Doru
On Oct 25, 2017, at 8:21 PM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
But in both cases #, is sent to FileReference/Petit parser instance, so it is contained. You would use it on a (generic) Number and tie it to specific Bloc meaning. Maybe have a polymorphic Vector in regular Pharo (I would imagine that PolyMath could also make use of that)?
Peter
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Obvious things are difficult to teach."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "One cannot do more than one can do."
Peter Uhnák wrote
But in both cases #, is sent to FileReference/Petit parser instance, so it is contained. You would use it on a (generic) Number and tie it to specific Bloc meaning.
Yes, this is exactly the problem. It is a reintroduction of a message like #name, which plagued us for so long. We appropriate the meaning of `aNumber, â¦` for the whole world. Now, if in MyCoolProject I want to implement aNumber>>#, I will break the system. Maybe we can follow the FS/PP pattern and scope the message to only-vector-like-things via an initial message, so just like `$f asParser, â¦`, have `1 {vector-appropriate-message}, â¦`? ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html
Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 4:09 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
Peter Uhnák wrote
But in both cases #, is sent to FileReference/Petit parser instance, so it is contained. You would use it on a (generic) Number and tie it to specific Bloc meaning.
Yes, this is exactly the problem. It is a reintroduction of a message like #name, which plagued us for so long. We appropriate the meaning of `aNumber, â¦` for the whole world. Now, if in MyCoolProject I want to implement aNumber>>#, I will break the system. Maybe we can follow the FS/PP pattern and scope the message to only-vector-like-things via an initial message, so just like `$f asParser, â¦`, have `1 {vector-appropriate-message}, â¦`?
You mean like sending @ to a number, right? :) Doru
----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837.html
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
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
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). 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."
This turned into a much more interesting thread than I expected (gosh you learn lots of stuff by reading comments). But I am impressed that Feenk listened to what people were saying, distilled it down and didnât take their ball home - thanks guys. Sometimes in all of these slightly robust conversations I have to keep thinking back to when I went to Pharo days, and how cool it was to see the wonderful things people had produced. It was inspiringâ¦. We have to hold onto that and keep moving the boundaries further without getting disillusioned or blocked. Iâm looking forward to the next Pharo Days where hopefully some of this stuff will be reality. Tim
On 26 Oct 2017, at 16:45, 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).
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."
+1 BTW we should start looking for an location for PharoDays 2018 :) On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
This turned into a much more interesting thread than I expected (gosh you learn lots of stuff by reading comments).
But I am impressed that Feenk listened to what people were saying, distilled it down and didnât take their ball home - thanks guys.
Sometimes in all of these slightly robust conversations I have to keep thinking back to when I went to Pharo days, and how cool it was to see the wonderful things people had produced. It was inspiringâ¦.
We have to hold onto that and keep moving the boundaries further without getting disillusioned or blocked.
Iâm looking forward to the next Pharo Days where hopefully some of this stuff will be reality.
Tim
On 26 Oct 2017, at 16:45, 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).
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."
Excellent decision Doru! Thanks!!!! Alexandre
On Oct 26, 2017, at 8:45 AM, 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).
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."
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."
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
Maybe we can follow the FS/PP pattern and scope the message to only-vector-like-things via an initial message, so just like `$f asParser, â¦`, have `1 {vector-appropriate-message}, â¦`?
So, something like 1 vector, 2, 5 or 1 biVector, 2, 6 ?
-cbc
you could do 1 x + 2 y + 5 z and that expression will give you a 3d vector. but it creates a lot of intermediate objects On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
Maybe we can follow the FS/PP pattern and scope the message to only-vector-like-things via an initial message, so just like `$f asParser, â¦`, have `1 {vector-appropriate-message}, â¦`?
So, something like 1 vector, 2, 5 or 1 biVector, 2, 6 ?
-cbc
-- Bernardo E.C. Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America.
Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not.
By the same argument you can tear apart any property of autoformatting. "Why is it messing with my indentation here?" "Why is it removing newlines?" "Why is it removing the last dot?" The problem here is that the autoformatter has no way of knowing that it is some "special" use rather than general binary message. (And for the record, I have startup scripts that modify the source code of the formatter, so I certainly am aware of autoformatting limitations...) Peter On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras < vonbecmann@gmail.com> wrote:
you could do
1 x + 2 y + 5 z
and that expression will give you a 3d vector. but it creates a lot of intermediate objects
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com> wrote:
Maybe we can follow the FS/PP pattern and scope the message to only-vector-like-things via an initial message, so just like `$f asParser, â¦`, have `1 {vector-appropriate-message}, â¦`?
So, something like 1 vector, 2, 5 or 1 biVector, 2, 6 ?
-cbc
-- Bernardo E.C.
Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America.
I do not turn on autoformatting and use the format menu entry on an as needed basis. Autoformatting on Seaside renderOn: methods is a royal PITA. Phil On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:44 PM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not.
By the same argument you can tear apart any property of autoformatting. "Why is it messing with my indentation here?" "Why is it removing newlines?" "Why is it removing the last dot?" The problem here is that the autoformatter has no way of knowing that it is some "special" use rather than general binary message. (And for the record, I have startup scripts that modify the source code of the formatter, so I certainly am aware of autoformatting limitations...)
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras < vonbecmann@gmail.com> wrote:
you could do
1 x + 2 y + 5 z
and that expression will give you a 3d vector. but it creates a lot of intermediate objects
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Chris Cunningham < cunningham.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:09 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com
wrote:
Maybe we can follow the FS/PP pattern and scope the message to only-vector-like-things via an initial message, so just like `$f asParser, â¦`, have `1 {vector-appropriate-message}, â¦`?
So, something like 1 vector, 2, 5 or 1 biVector, 2, 6 ?
-cbc
-- Bernardo E.C.
Sent from a cheap desktop computer in South America.
Hi, there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things". Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right? I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use: 1@2 asVector or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2 Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>: Hi, there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things". Like concatenating coordinates :-) Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right? I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use: 1@2 asVector or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2 Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of dimensions makes sense. vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2). looks how it should be. Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text. Phil On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
Automatic formatting will turn it into vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2. Which is not as nice. And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector would work too), this starts to look quite generic: vector := width, height, depth. Question: why not extend @ notation? x @ y @ z? Peter On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
#(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector Meh. Ugly. { 1. 3. 4. a. b } asVector is the natural consequence. v := (1,3,4,5,7,-2) asVector keeps the parens. But why do I need to do that? Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not. And frankly, I like the "Feenk way of doing things" most of the time, so I am willing to go that route. Phil On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Automatic formatting will turn it into
vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2.
Which is not as nice.
And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector
would work too), this starts to look quite generic:
vector := width, height, depth.
Question: why not extend @ notation?
x @ y @ z?
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>
wrote:
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of
dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com>
wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using
Point).
But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
Another question. Will not these vectors deprecate Point in future ? Imaging that we will completely move to Bloc. And what about Rectangle? (Bloc implements own BlRectangle). 2017-10-26 9:26 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>:
#(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector
Meh. Ugly.
{ 1. 3. 4. a. b } asVector
is the natural consequence.
v := (1,3,4,5,7,-2) asVector
keeps the parens. But why do I need to do that?
Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not.
And frankly, I like the "Feenk way of doing things" most of the time, so I am willing to go that route.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Automatic formatting will turn it into
vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2.
Which is not as nice.
And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2)
asVector would work too), this starts to look quite generic:
vector := width, height, depth.
Question: why not extend @ notation?
x @ y @ z?
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>
wrote:
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of
dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com>
wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using
Point).
But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Another question.
Will not these vectors deprecate Point in future ? Imaging that we will completely move to Bloc.
No. Point is a perfectly reasonable data structure to describe a position. A Vector is something else and has other contracts. The coincidence is that they share the same variables, but they have different API. For example, a vector has #length. A point does not.
And what about Rectangle? (Bloc implements own BlRectangle).
These two do not have the same semantics. BlRectangle is a BlGeometry and is used for defining a path within an element. BlRectangle is polymorphic with other paths such as BlEllipse or BlPolygon. Rectangle is a generic data structure that can be used for other purposes. We should definitely try to find commonalities and opportunities for unification. However, we should not confuse state with types which are defined by the purpose they are used for (and associated behavior). Doru
2017-10-26 9:26 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>: #(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector
Meh. Ugly.
{ 1. 3. 4. a. b } asVector
is the natural consequence.
v := (1,3,4,5,7,-2) asVector
keeps the parens. But why do I need to do that?
Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not.
And frankly, I like the "Feenk way of doing things" most of the time, so I am willing to go that route.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Automatic formatting will turn it into
vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2.
Which is not as nice.
And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector would work too), this starts to look quite generic:
vector := width, height, depth.
Question: why not extend @ notation?
x @ y @ z?
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "When people care, great things can happen."
2017-10-26 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>:
Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Another question.
Will not these vectors deprecate Point in future ? Imaging that we will completely move to Bloc.
No. Point is a perfectly reasonable data structure to describe a position. A Vector is something else and has other contracts. The coincidence is that they share the same variables, but they have different API. For example, a vector has #length. A point does not.
Now Point implements most vector operations. The #length is defined as radius by #r message. I imaging that with new vector you will reimplement many of Point methods. Also I doubt that Point plays any role in system which is different than math vector.
And what about Rectangle? (Bloc implements own BlRectangle).
These two do not have the same semantics. BlRectangle is a BlGeometry and is used for defining a path within an element. BlRectangle is polymorphic with other paths such as BlEllipse or BlPolygon. Rectangle is a generic data structure that can be used for other purposes.
We should definitely try to find commonalities and opportunities for unification. However, we should not confuse state with types which are defined by the purpose they are used for (and associated behavior).
Doru
2017-10-26 9:26 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>: #(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector
Meh. Ugly.
{ 1. 3. 4. a. b } asVector
is the natural consequence.
v := (1,3,4,5,7,-2) asVector
keeps the parens. But why do I need to do that?
Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not.
And frankly, I like the "Feenk way of doing things" most of the time, so I am willing to go that route.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Automatic formatting will turn it into
vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2.
Which is not as nice.
And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2)
asVector would work too), this starts to look quite generic:
vector := width, height, depth.
Question: why not extend @ notation?
x @ y @ z?
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <
phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of
dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com>
wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using
Point).
But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"When people care, great things can happen."
Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-10-26 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>: Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Another question.
Will not these vectors deprecate Point in future ? Imaging that we will completely move to Bloc.
No. Point is a perfectly reasonable data structure to describe a position. A Vector is something else and has other contracts. The coincidence is that they share the same variables, but they have different API. For example, a vector has #length. A point does not.
Now Point implements most vector operations. The #length is defined as radius by #r message. I imaging that with new vector you will reimplement many of Point methods. Also I doubt that Point plays any role in system which is different than math vector.
I think that over time we have accumulated all sorts of other usages for Point. For example, Rectangle uses origin and corner as a position not as vectors. Doru
And what about Rectangle? (Bloc implements own BlRectangle).
These two do not have the same semantics. BlRectangle is a BlGeometry and is used for defining a path within an element. BlRectangle is polymorphic with other paths such as BlEllipse or BlPolygon. Rectangle is a generic data structure that can be used for other purposes.
We should definitely try to find commonalities and opportunities for unification. However, we should not confuse state with types which are defined by the purpose they are used for (and associated behavior).
Doru
2017-10-26 9:26 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>: #(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector
Meh. Ugly.
{ 1. 3. 4. a. b } asVector
is the natural consequence.
v := (1,3,4,5,7,-2) asVector
keeps the parens. But why do I need to do that?
Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not.
And frankly, I like the "Feenk way of doing things" most of the time, so I am willing to go that route.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Automatic formatting will turn it into
vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2.
Which is not as nice.
And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector would work too), this starts to look quite generic:
vector := width, height, depth.
Question: why not extend @ notation?
x @ y @ z?
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"When people care, great things can happen."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
Hi, To make the conversation more interesting, in Bloc we also have BlPoint with subclasses for 2D, 3D and 4D. The reason for this is that we model explicitly the intention of usage even if they share the instance variable names. We did not use Point because we needed 3D and 4D as well and Point has too many meanings that are conflated into one. This pattern was used everywhere we could. For example, we have BlBounds instead of Rectangle (actually, this is also because of performance reasons of working directly with 4 numbers rather than 2 points). Of course, these come with an apparent extra maintenance cost. So, if we see a possibility of unifying we should definitely take it, and this is where external reviewers can help to point out possibilities. We should just not unify just for the sake of it. Cheers, Doru
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-10-26 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>: Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Another question.
Will not these vectors deprecate Point in future ? Imaging that we will completely move to Bloc.
No. Point is a perfectly reasonable data structure to describe a position. A Vector is something else and has other contracts. The coincidence is that they share the same variables, but they have different API. For example, a vector has #length. A point does not.
Now Point implements most vector operations. The #length is defined as radius by #r message. I imaging that with new vector you will reimplement many of Point methods. Also I doubt that Point plays any role in system which is different than math vector.
I think that over time we have accumulated all sorts of other usages for Point. For example, Rectangle uses origin and corner as a position not as vectors.
Doru
And what about Rectangle? (Bloc implements own BlRectangle).
These two do not have the same semantics. BlRectangle is a BlGeometry and is used for defining a path within an element. BlRectangle is polymorphic with other paths such as BlEllipse or BlPolygon. Rectangle is a generic data structure that can be used for other purposes.
We should definitely try to find commonalities and opportunities for unification. However, we should not confuse state with types which are defined by the purpose they are used for (and associated behavior).
Doru
2017-10-26 9:26 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>: #(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector
Meh. Ugly.
{ 1. 3. 4. a. b } asVector
is the natural consequence.
v := (1,3,4,5,7,-2) asVector
keeps the parens. But why do I need to do that?
Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not.
And frankly, I like the "Feenk way of doing things" most of the time, so I am willing to go that route.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Automatic formatting will turn it into
vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2.
Which is not as nice.
And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector would work too), this starts to look quite generic:
vector := width, height, depth.
Question: why not extend @ notation?
x @ y @ z?
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"When people care, great things can happen."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "We are all great at making mistakes."
A clear separation between Point and Vector makes perfectly sense. Ideally, Point should be deprecated then. Otherwise it is a complexity growth. Hilaire Le 26/10/2017 à 11:39, Tudor Girba a écrit :
To make the conversation more interesting, in Bloc we also have BlPoint with subclasses for 2D, 3D and 4D. The reason for this is that we model explicitly the intention of usage even if they share the instance variable names. We did not use Point because we needed 3D and 4D as well and Point has too many meanings that are conflated into one.
This pattern was used everywhere we could. For example, we have BlBounds instead of Rectangle (actually, this is also because of performance reasons of working directly with 4 numbers rather than 2 points).
Of course, these come with an apparent extra maintenance cost. So, if we see a possibility of unifying we should definitely take it, and this is where external reviewers can help to point out possibilities. We should just not unify just for the sake of it.
-- Dr. Geo http://drgeo.eu
Doru I was thinking that you would also have BlMargin because Margin is a nice concept. When I introduced it with Igor it simplified a lot of code in expand, shrink and other operations. Stef On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
To make the conversation more interesting, in Bloc we also have BlPoint with subclasses for 2D, 3D and 4D. The reason for this is that we model explicitly the intention of usage even if they share the instance variable names. We did not use Point because we needed 3D and 4D as well and Point has too many meanings that are conflated into one.
This pattern was used everywhere we could. For example, we have BlBounds instead of Rectangle (actually, this is also because of performance reasons of working directly with 4 numbers rather than 2 points).
Of course, these come with an apparent extra maintenance cost. So, if we see a possibility of unifying we should definitely take it, and this is where external reviewers can help to point out possibilities. We should just not unify just for the sake of it.
Cheers, Doru
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-10-26 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>: Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Another question.
Will not these vectors deprecate Point in future ? Imaging that we will completely move to Bloc.
No. Point is a perfectly reasonable data structure to describe a position. A Vector is something else and has other contracts. The coincidence is that they share the same variables, but they have different API. For example, a vector has #length. A point does not.
Now Point implements most vector operations. The #length is defined as radius by #r message. I imaging that with new vector you will reimplement many of Point methods. Also I doubt that Point plays any role in system which is different than math vector.
I think that over time we have accumulated all sorts of other usages for Point. For example, Rectangle uses origin and corner as a position not as vectors.
Doru
And what about Rectangle? (Bloc implements own BlRectangle).
These two do not have the same semantics. BlRectangle is a BlGeometry and is used for defining a path within an element. BlRectangle is polymorphic with other paths such as BlEllipse or BlPolygon. Rectangle is a generic data structure that can be used for other purposes.
We should definitely try to find commonalities and opportunities for unification. However, we should not confuse state with types which are defined by the purpose they are used for (and associated behavior).
Doru
2017-10-26 9:26 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>: #(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector
Meh. Ugly.
{ 1. 3. 4. a. b } asVector
is the natural consequence.
v := (1,3,4,5,7,-2) asVector
keeps the parens. But why do I need to do that?
Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not.
And frankly, I like the "Feenk way of doing things" most of the time, so I am willing to go that route.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Automatic formatting will turn it into
vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2.
Which is not as nice.
And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector would work too), this starts to look quite generic:
vector := width, height, depth.
Question: why not extend @ notation?
x @ y @ z?
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"When people care, great things can happen."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"We are all great at making mistakes."
Indeed, we have BlInsets that are used for either padding or margin. Doru
On Oct 26, 2017, at 11:43 PM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.com> wrote:
Doru
I was thinking that you would also have BlMargin because Margin is a nice concept. When I introduced it with Igor it simplified a lot of code in expand, shrink and other operations.
Stef
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
To make the conversation more interesting, in Bloc we also have BlPoint with subclasses for 2D, 3D and 4D. The reason for this is that we model explicitly the intention of usage even if they share the instance variable names. We did not use Point because we needed 3D and 4D as well and Point has too many meanings that are conflated into one.
This pattern was used everywhere we could. For example, we have BlBounds instead of Rectangle (actually, this is also because of performance reasons of working directly with 4 numbers rather than 2 points).
Of course, these come with an apparent extra maintenance cost. So, if we see a possibility of unifying we should definitely take it, and this is where external reviewers can help to point out possibilities. We should just not unify just for the sake of it.
Cheers, Doru
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-10-26 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>: Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Another question.
Will not these vectors deprecate Point in future ? Imaging that we will completely move to Bloc.
No. Point is a perfectly reasonable data structure to describe a position. A Vector is something else and has other contracts. The coincidence is that they share the same variables, but they have different API. For example, a vector has #length. A point does not.
Now Point implements most vector operations. The #length is defined as radius by #r message. I imaging that with new vector you will reimplement many of Point methods. Also I doubt that Point plays any role in system which is different than math vector.
I think that over time we have accumulated all sorts of other usages for Point. For example, Rectangle uses origin and corner as a position not as vectors.
Doru
And what about Rectangle? (Bloc implements own BlRectangle).
These two do not have the same semantics. BlRectangle is a BlGeometry and is used for defining a path within an element. BlRectangle is polymorphic with other paths such as BlEllipse or BlPolygon. Rectangle is a generic data structure that can be used for other purposes.
We should definitely try to find commonalities and opportunities for unification. However, we should not confuse state with types which are defined by the purpose they are used for (and associated behavior).
Doru
2017-10-26 9:26 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>: #(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector
Meh. Ugly.
{ 1. 3. 4. a. b } asVector
is the natural consequence.
v := (1,3,4,5,7,-2) asVector
keeps the parens. But why do I need to do that?
Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not.
And frankly, I like the "Feenk way of doing things" most of the time, so I am willing to go that route.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Automatic formatting will turn it into
vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2.
Which is not as nice.
And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector would work too), this starts to look quite generic:
vector := width, height, depth.
Question: why not extend @ notation?
x @ y @ z?
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"When people care, great things can happen."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"We are all great at making mistakes."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."
Ok good to know. On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Indeed, we have BlInsets that are used for either padding or margin.
Doru
On Oct 26, 2017, at 11:43 PM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.com> wrote:
Doru
I was thinking that you would also have BlMargin because Margin is a nice concept. When I introduced it with Igor it simplified a lot of code in expand, shrink and other operations.
Stef
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
To make the conversation more interesting, in Bloc we also have BlPoint with subclasses for 2D, 3D and 4D. The reason for this is that we model explicitly the intention of usage even if they share the instance variable names. We did not use Point because we needed 3D and 4D as well and Point has too many meanings that are conflated into one.
This pattern was used everywhere we could. For example, we have BlBounds instead of Rectangle (actually, this is also because of performance reasons of working directly with 4 numbers rather than 2 points).
Of course, these come with an apparent extra maintenance cost. So, if we see a possibility of unifying we should definitely take it, and this is where external reviewers can help to point out possibilities. We should just not unify just for the sake of it.
Cheers, Doru
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-10-26 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>: Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Another question.
Will not these vectors deprecate Point in future ? Imaging that we will completely move to Bloc.
No. Point is a perfectly reasonable data structure to describe a position. A Vector is something else and has other contracts. The coincidence is that they share the same variables, but they have different API. For example, a vector has #length. A point does not.
Now Point implements most vector operations. The #length is defined as radius by #r message. I imaging that with new vector you will reimplement many of Point methods. Also I doubt that Point plays any role in system which is different than math vector.
I think that over time we have accumulated all sorts of other usages for Point. For example, Rectangle uses origin and corner as a position not as vectors.
Doru
And what about Rectangle? (Bloc implements own BlRectangle).
These two do not have the same semantics. BlRectangle is a BlGeometry and is used for defining a path within an element. BlRectangle is polymorphic with other paths such as BlEllipse or BlPolygon. Rectangle is a generic data structure that can be used for other purposes.
We should definitely try to find commonalities and opportunities for unification. However, we should not confuse state with types which are defined by the purpose they are used for (and associated behavior).
Doru
2017-10-26 9:26 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>: #(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector
Meh. Ugly.
{ 1. 3. 4. a. b } asVector
is the natural consequence.
v := (1,3,4,5,7,-2) asVector
keeps the parens. But why do I need to do that?
Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not.
And frankly, I like the "Feenk way of doing things" most of the time, so I am willing to go that route.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Automatic formatting will turn it into
vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2.
Which is not as nice.
And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector would work too), this starts to look quite generic:
vector := width, height, depth.
Question: why not extend @ notation?
x @ y @ z?
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"When people care, great things can happen."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"We are all great at making mistakes."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."
Just a few notes: 1) 4 , 2 , 3 , 5 looks too much like Shlemiel the painter, ok for short vector input, but not even for printing (think re-interpreting) 2) 1 x + 2 y + 3 z might look nice. Exactly like 1+2i (Complex) or 1+2i+3j+4k (Quaternion) But for the sake of efficiency, I had to introduce (1 i: 2) otherwise interpretng a complex matrix was too much expensive (compared to Matlab) 3) as Doru said, there are many possible conflicts for Number>>, I'm pretty sure that Jun was using it too for this reason I removed it from Smallapack 2017-10-27 19:12 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.com>:
Ok good to know.
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Indeed, we have BlInsets that are used for either padding or margin.
Doru
On Oct 26, 2017, at 11:43 PM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.com> wrote:
Doru
I was thinking that you would also have BlMargin because Margin is a nice concept. When I introduced it with Igor it simplified a lot of code in expand, shrink and other operations.
Stef
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
To make the conversation more interesting, in Bloc we also have BlPoint with subclasses for 2D, 3D and 4D. The reason for this is that we model explicitly the intention of usage even if they share the instance variable names. We did not use Point because we needed 3D and 4D as well and Point has too many meanings that are conflated into one.
This pattern was used everywhere we could. For example, we have BlBounds instead of Rectangle (actually, this is also because of performance reasons of working directly with 4 numbers rather than 2 points).
Of course, these come with an apparent extra maintenance cost. So, if we see a possibility of unifying we should definitely take it, and this is where external reviewers can help to point out possibilities. We should just not unify just for the sake of it.
Cheers, Doru
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-10-26 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>: Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Denis Kudriashov < dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Another question.
Will not these vectors deprecate Point in future ? Imaging that we will completely move to Bloc.
No. Point is a perfectly reasonable data structure to describe a position. A Vector is something else and has other contracts. The coincidence is that they share the same variables, but they have different API. For example, a vector has #length. A point does not.
Now Point implements most vector operations. The #length is defined as radius by #r message. I imaging that with new vector you will reimplement many of Point methods. Also I doubt that Point plays any role in system which is different than math vector.
I think that over time we have accumulated all sorts of other usages for Point. For example, Rectangle uses origin and corner as a position not as vectors.
Doru
And what about Rectangle? (Bloc implements own BlRectangle).
These two do not have the same semantics. BlRectangle is a
BlGeometry and is used for defining a path within an element. BlRectangle is polymorphic with other paths such as BlEllipse or BlPolygon. Rectangle is a generic data structure that can be used for other purposes.
We should definitely try to find commonalities and opportunities for
unification. However, we should not confuse state with types which are defined by the purpose they are used for (and associated behavior).
Doru
2017-10-26 9:26 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>: #(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector
Meh. Ugly.
{ 1. 3. 4. a. b } asVector
is the natural consequence.
v := (1,3,4,5,7,-2) asVector
keeps the parens. But why do I need to do that?
Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an
editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not.
And frankly, I like the "Feenk way of doing things" most of the
time, so I am willing to go that route.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com>
wrote:
Automatic formatting will turn it into
vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2.
Which is not as nice.
And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2)
asVector would work too), this starts to look quite generic:
vector := width, height, depth.
Question: why not extend @ notation?
x @ y @ z?
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <
phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation
of dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <
nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <
astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of
using Point).
But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"When people care, great things can happen."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"We are all great at making mistakes."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."
(1 i: 2) is nice. Tx for the feedback nicolas. On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com> wrote:
Just a few notes:
1) 4 , 2 , 3 , 5 looks too much like Shlemiel the painter, ok for short vector input, but not even for printing (think re-interpreting)
2) 1 x + 2 y + 3 z might look nice. Exactly like 1+2i (Complex) or 1+2i+3j+4k (Quaternion) But for the sake of efficiency, I had to introduce (1 i: 2) otherwise interpretng a complex matrix was too much expensive (compared to Matlab)
3) as Doru said, there are many possible conflicts for Number>>, I'm pretty sure that Jun was using it too for this reason I removed it from Smallapack
2017-10-27 19:12 GMT+02:00 Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.com>:
Ok good to know.
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Indeed, we have BlInsets that are used for either padding or margin.
Doru
On Oct 26, 2017, at 11:43 PM, Stephane Ducasse <stepharo.self@gmail.com> wrote:
Doru
I was thinking that you would also have BlMargin because Margin is a nice concept. When I introduced it with Igor it simplified a lot of code in expand, shrink and other operations.
Stef
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
To make the conversation more interesting, in Bloc we also have BlPoint with subclasses for 2D, 3D and 4D. The reason for this is that we model explicitly the intention of usage even if they share the instance variable names. We did not use Point because we needed 3D and 4D as well and Point has too many meanings that are conflated into one.
This pattern was used everywhere we could. For example, we have BlBounds instead of Rectangle (actually, this is also because of performance reasons of working directly with 4 numbers rather than 2 points).
Of course, these come with an apparent extra maintenance cost. So, if we see a possibility of unifying we should definitely take it, and this is where external reviewers can help to point out possibilities. We should just not unify just for the sake of it.
Cheers, Doru
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:57 AM, Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:36 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-10-26 10:20 GMT+02:00 Tudor Girba <tudor@tudorgirba.com>: Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com> wrote:
Another question.
Will not these vectors deprecate Point in future ? Imaging that we will completely move to Bloc.
No. Point is a perfectly reasonable data structure to describe a position. A Vector is something else and has other contracts. The coincidence is that they share the same variables, but they have different API. For example, a vector has #length. A point does not.
Now Point implements most vector operations. The #length is defined as radius by #r message. I imaging that with new vector you will reimplement many of Point methods. Also I doubt that Point plays any role in system which is different than math vector.
I think that over time we have accumulated all sorts of other usages for Point. For example, Rectangle uses origin and corner as a position not as vectors.
Doru
And what about Rectangle? (Bloc implements own BlRectangle).
These two do not have the same semantics. BlRectangle is a BlGeometry and is used for defining a path within an element. BlRectangle is polymorphic with other paths such as BlEllipse or BlPolygon. Rectangle is a generic data structure that can be used for other purposes.
We should definitely try to find commonalities and opportunities for unification. However, we should not confuse state with types which are defined by the purpose they are used for (and associated behavior).
Doru
2017-10-26 9:26 GMT+02:00 phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be>: #(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector
Meh. Ugly.
{ 1. 3. 4. a. b } asVector
is the natural consequence.
v := (1,3,4,5,7,-2) asVector
keeps the parens. But why do I need to do that?
Autoformatting messing with my parentheses is just a mistake. I put them in, leave them where they are, 'kay? I do not need an editor that rewrites what I tell it. AST power or not.
And frankly, I like the "Feenk way of doing things" most of the time, so I am willing to go that route.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Automatic formatting will turn it into
vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2.
Which is not as nice.
And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector would work too), this starts to look quite generic:
vector := width, height, depth.
Question: why not extend @ notation?
x @ y @ z?
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote:
I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>:
Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"When people care, great things can happen."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you interrupt the barber while he is cutting your hair, you will end up with a messy haircut."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"We are all great at making mistakes."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"If you can't say why something is relevant, it probably isn't."
On Oct 26, 2017, at 8:52 AM, Peter Uhnák <i.uhnak@gmail.com> wrote:
Automatic formatting will turn it into
vector := 1,3,4,5,7,-2.
Which is not as nice.
While this can be an issue, I see it as secondary, because formatting should help recognize intention, not force us to comply with a standard created by someone else.
And even though it looks ok for literal numbers (#(1 3 4 5 7 -2) asVector would work too), this starts to look quite generic:
vector := width, height, depth.
I am not sure I understand this point. Could you explain?
Question: why not extend @ notation?
x @ y @ z?
We do not want that specific one because Vectors are not Points. At least not in our context. Doru
Peter
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM, phil@highoctane.be <phil@highoctane.be> wrote: I also like the , message for those vectors and the concatenation of dimensions makes sense.
vector := (1,3,4,5,7,-2).
looks how it should be.
Readable, easy to translate vector stuff from reference text.
Phil
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>: Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Reasonable is what we are accustomed with."
Hi,
On Oct 26, 2017, at 7:00 AM, Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
Am 25.10.2017 10:50 PM schrieb "Torsten Bergmann" <astares@gmx.de>: Hi,
there might be reasons for an own 2D vector class (instead of using Point). But still I dislike the reimplementation of "," because for me so far it has the meaning of "concatenating things".
Like concatenating coordinates :-)
Indeed, this is what we see it as well. Doru
Here you redefine it to create vector instances and it works only up to three so far. Right?
I understand that this gives some similarities with the math notation (1,2) but I personally would prefer to use:
1@2 asVector
or Vector2D x: 1 y: 2
Thx T.
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. Oktober 2017 um 20:06 Uhr Von: "Tudor Girba" <tudor@tudorgirba.com> An: "Pharo Development List" <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> Betreff: [Pharo-dev] , for vector creation
Hi,
As mentioned in the separate thread, we played with introducing the extension:
, aNumber ^ BlVector2D x: self y: aNumber
This means that (10,20) will return a 2D vector.
We also have (10,20,30) which returns a 3D vector.
, is used for different meanings already in the image beside the collection concatenation. For example, in FileReference is adds a file extension. And Exceptions create a collection. In other packages, PetitParser uses it as a sequence operator.
Please voice your concerns.
Cheers, Doru
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com
"Every thing should have the right to be different."
-- www.tudorgirba.com www.feenk.com "Obvious things are difficult to teach."
participants (16)
-
Alexandre Bergel -
Ben Coman -
Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras -
Chris Cunningham -
Denis Kudriashov -
henry -
Hilaire -
Nicolai Hess -
Nicolas Cellier -
Peter Uhnák -
phil＠highoctane.be -
Sean P. DeNigris -
Stephane Ducasse -
Tim Mackinnon -
Torsten Bergmann -
Tudor Girba