D - "creal", "ireal"???!!!
- Norbert Nemec (24/24) Apr 21 2004 Hi there,
- Walter (6/28) Apr 21 2004 You can alias them if it works better for you:
- Norbert Nemec (24/40) Apr 21 2004 True, but I'm less worried about my personal convenience, but the image ...
- Matthew (1/5) Apr 21 2004 I was just going to mention that, so will simply say "hear, hear!"
- Haw Haw (1/4) Apr 21 2004 But then where do I put my fish?
- Norbert Nemec (3/8) Apr 21 2004 Sorry, I guess I don't get you. I assume a pun somewhere, but my diction...
- Kris (7/15) Apr 21 2004 try "creel" instead ... it's a Scottish name for what others might call ...
- Walter (7/47) Apr 21 2004 and
- Roberto Mariottini (13/26) Apr 22 2004 Ehm, still not fixed. From the updated doc:
- Norbert Nemec (26/26) Apr 22 2004 Sorry to continue nagging about this, but I'm pretty serious:
- Walter (8/8) Apr 22 2004 I understand your point. The naming of basic types has been a contentiou...
Hi there,
sorry, but with these names for complex and imaginary numbers, you have
created a joke among mathematicians for the years to come!
Why not rename these types to "complex" and "imag" and make code much more
readable? OK, the list
float
double
real
ifloat
idouble
imag
cfloat
cdouble
complex
might not look quite as regular, but since most people will only work with
"real","imag" and "complex" (everything else is just for special cases and
compatibility) you would *really* improve readability!
Another detail concerning complex numbers:
a.im
should really return a real number. Looking at all mathematics text books
all over the world, the function Im(a+bi) is defined to return the real
number b.
Ciao,
Nobbi
Apr 21 2004
"Norbert Nemec" <Norbert.Nemec gmx.de> wrote in message news:c657eq$2loj$1 digitaldaemon.com...Hi there, sorry, but with these names for complex and imaginary numbers, you have created a joke among mathematicians for the years to come! Why not rename these types to "complex" and "imag" and make code much more readable? OK, the list float double real ifloat idouble imag cfloat cdouble complex might not look quite as regular, but since most people will only work with "real","imag" and "complex" (everything else is just for special cases and compatibility) you would *really* improve readability!You can alias them if it works better for you: alias creal complex; alias ireal imag;Another detail concerning complex numbers: a.im should really return a real number. Looking at all mathematics text books all over the world, the function Im(a+bi) is defined to return the real number b.It already works this way.
Apr 21 2004
Walter wrote:"Norbert Nemec" <Norbert.Nemec gmx.de> wrote in messageTrue, but I'm less worried about my personal convenience, but the image of the language. Any mathematician will have problems taking a language serious that calls its complex type "creal"! Also, thinking quite egoistic: Programming does not only mean writing and reading my own code, but also to read other peoples code. And most people will just stick with what the language definition tells them. Therefore, I would strongly recommend to change the language definition and - if you want to keep compatibility, introduce aliases the other way around to the standard library. B.t.w: after consideration I would change my proposal from "imag" to "imaginary" as the replacement keyword for "ireal". The type would be typed rather rarely, so the longer word is more appropriate (and you can't misinterpret it as abbrevation of "image")sorry, but with these names for complex and imaginary numbers, you have created a joke among mathematicians for the years to come!You can alias them if it works better for you: alias creal complex; alias ireal imag;True, sorry, I got caught by an error in http://www.digitalmars.com/d/float.html section Complex and Imaginary types reading: | For example: | cd.re is 4.5 double | cd.im is 2i idouble | c.re is 4.5 real | c.im is 2i irealAnother detail concerning complex numbers: a.im should really return a real number. Looking at all mathematics text books all over the world, the function Im(a+bi) is defined to return the real number b.It already works this way.
Apr 21 2004
"Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> B.t.w: after consideration I would change my proposal from "imag" to "imaginary" as the replacement keyword for "ireal". The type would be typed rather rarely, so the longer word is more appropriate (and you can't misinterpret it as abbrevation of "image")I was just going to mention that, so will simply say "hear, hear!"
Apr 21 2004
True, but I'm less worried about my personal convenience, but the image of the language. Any mathematician will have problems taking a language serious that calls its complex type "creal"!But then where do I put my fish?
Apr 21 2004
Haw Haw wrote:Sorry, I guess I don't get you. I assume a pun somewhere, but my dictionary keeps quiet about any meaning of "creal".True, but I'm less worried about my personal convenience, but the image of the language. Any mathematician will have problems taking a language serious that calls its complex type "creal"!But then where do I put my fish?
Apr 21 2004
try "creel" instead ... it's a Scottish name for what others might call a "lobster pot" ... - Kris "Norbert Nemec" <Norbert.Nemec gmx.de> wrote in message news:c668d9$1cc3$1 digitaldaemon.com...Haw Haw wrote:ofTrue, but I'm less worried about my personal convenience, but the imagedictionarySorry, I guess I don't get you. I assume a pun somewhere, but mythe language. Any mathematician will have problems taking a language serious that calls its complex type "creal"!But then where do I put my fish?keeps quiet about any meaning of "creal".
Apr 21 2004
"Norbert Nemec" <Norbert.Nemec gmx.de> wrote in message news:c65gk6$42f$1 digitaldaemon.com...Walter wrote:and"Norbert Nemec" <Norbert.Nemec gmx.de> wrote in messageTrue, but I'm less worried about my personal convenience, but the image of the language. Any mathematician will have problems taking a language serious that calls its complex type "creal"! Also, thinking quite egoistic: Programming does not only mean writing and reading my own code, but also to read other peoples code. And most people will just stick with what the language definition tells them. Therefore, I would strongly recommend to change the language definitionsorry, but with these names for complex and imaginary numbers, you have created a joke among mathematicians for the years to come!You can alias them if it works better for you: alias creal complex; alias ireal imag;- if you want to keep compatibility, introduce aliases the other wayaroundto the standard library. B.t.w: after consideration I would change my proposal from "imag" to "imaginary" as the replacement keyword for "ireal". The type would betypedrather rarely, so the longer word is more appropriate (and you can't misinterpret it as abbrevation of "image")booksAnother detail concerning complex numbers: a.im should really return a real number. Looking at all mathematics textI see where the confusion came from, thanks. I fixed the doc.True, sorry, I got caught by an error in http://www.digitalmars.com/d/float.html section Complex and Imaginary types reading: | For example: | cd.re is 4.5 double | cd.im is 2i idouble | c.re is 4.5 real | c.im is 2i irealall over the world, the function Im(a+bi) is defined to return the real number b.It already works this way.
Apr 21 2004
In article <c66f9s$1qqk$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says..."Norbert Nemec" <Norbert.Nemec gmx.de> wrote in message news:c65gk6$42f$1 digitaldaemon.com...[...]Ehm, still not fixed. From the updated doc: cd.re is 4.5 double cd.im is 2 double c.re is 4.5 real c.im is 2 real IMO it should be: cd.re is 3.6 double cd.im is 4 double c.re is 4.5 real c.im is 2 real CiaoTrue, sorry, I got caught by an error in http://www.digitalmars.com/d/float.html section Complex and Imaginary types reading: | For example: | cd.re is 4.5 double | cd.im is 2i idouble | c.re is 4.5 real | c.im is 2i irealI see where the confusion came from, thanks. I fixed the doc.
Apr 22 2004
Sorry to continue nagging about this, but I'm pretty serious:
"creal" is an abbrevation for "complex real" which is a contradiction in
itself! "imaginary real" is even worse than that.
Nobody would have a problem to talk about "complex float" or "imaginary
integer". These terms are rarely used in mathematics, but everyone will
understand intuitively what is meant.
I know that the systematics of the typenames in D suggests to continue from
"cfloat" and "cdouble", but systematics is not the most important issue
here.
"cfloat" and "cdouble" will hardly ever be used. Most programs will just
handle "real" and "complex"/"creal" values (even "imaginary"/"ireal" would
be an exception, I guess)
Just for practical usage, it would therefore be far easier to read a program
talking of "real" and "complex" values, than to see the two types only
distinguished by a single letter "c".
Leaving it to the programmer to define
alias creal complex;
himself means unnecessary confusion and looks like telling the user to fix a
problem that should have been fixed in the language in the first place.
Every serious scientist would introduce that alias for himself just to avoid
typing an oxymoron all over his code. Other code will probably just stick
with the "official" name for the type. Therefore you'll have a strange
confusion factor for no good reason but some pointless systematics in the
naming of standard types.
Ciao,
Nobbi
Apr 22 2004
I understand your point. The naming of basic types has been a contentious issue from the beginning. The trouble is, whichever names D picks will have passionate defenders as well as equally eloquent and passionate detractors. creal actually did used to be "complex", but trouble came when it became necessary to have complex float and complex double types as well. I don't particularly care for C's method of stringing together long sequences like "complex long double", it's just too much typing. So, I opted for a short, simple, consistent naming convention.
Apr 22 2004