> How about extending the available number precisions? If > you're using > "infinite precision" numbers (which aren't built in to any > language I'm > familiar with) then you'd definately want +, -, *, etc. to > be > overloaded. c=a.add(b) is sucky syntax!
> The real power, however, is when you have mixed variable > types that > can't be determined at compile-time. Then, you can have > runtime > determination of the correct method without scrambling > your syntax. > Does that make sense? The former makes sense, although it's still not a big selling point for me... unlimited precision isn't a common need for most of the applications I've worked on... actually I can't think of an application I've worked on that needed it... I've heard of it being necessary for certain (I thought largely scientific-community) applications... The latter eludes me -- possibly because I'm just so used to working with CF which is a loosely-typed-to-untyped language or JavaScript which has no "compile-time" directives. I have worked with typed languages like C++, Java and iirc PERL in the past, but not much recently. I take that back -- I've done a lot more work with Java since the release of MX, but very little (if any) involving math with Java. s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://macromedia.breezecentral.com/p49777853/ http://www.sys-con.com/author/?id=4806 http://www.fusiontap.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:155311 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
