I think James Bowery's comments are intended to address a real need for
programming languages to work with units of measurement. It might even
prevent aircraft accidents which have really happened because fuel was
delivered in Canadian gallons, or kilograms, when the pilots request was
for
I'll start with your last point:
At this point, though, plans to expand on Perl 6's capabilities are taking
a back seat to getting Perl 6's existing capabilities implemented. This
has been true for some time now, in fact — which is all the more reason to
get Perl 6.0 fully implemented as soon as
One thing to keep in mind is that while adding such things to the Perl 6
core might not be the highest priority at this point something like that
could be implemented as a module (if we have a consistent idea what we
want).
Currently it's possible to change the language to (a subset of) Perl 5 (
I have to admit to currently being of the opinion that Commensurability
appears to be a feature for program code to perform rather than a
programming language to perform, but openly admit to the possibility that I
do not understand the concept fully enough for my opinion to be valid.
Your point
On Aug 23, 2013, at 2:41 AM, Steve Pitchford steve.pitchf...@gmail.com wrote:
How would you implement, in a robust way, the following things:
1 kg + 1 kg = 2 kg
2 m * 3 m = 6 m^2
5 kg * (3 m/s)^2 = 45 J
The answer is that you wouldn't - the problem domain is so vague as to be
If I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is the syntactic
sugar similar to perl 5's overload, but with Object/Class support, support
for autoboxing and a way, either by convention or configuration of
facilitating type conversion and degradation?
So one could write something like:
It is interesting to look at what Julia has done to get numerical performance
from a dynamic language
http://julialang.org/
and julia's visibility in to the internal representation
http://blog.leahhanson.us/julia-introspects.html
Regards,
Todd Olson
