On 8 jun, 19:43, ataggart <alex.tagg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 8, 6:33 am, Steven Devijver <steven.devij...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 8 jun, 05:47, Daniel <doubleagen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > These notation arguments are compelling. > > > I'm not convinced. The notation would only work for literals > > Correct. > > > For non-literals the notation would need to support this: > > > (* (my-complicated-algo x)+(my-other-complicated-algo y)i (another- > > algo z)i) > > You're conflating notation with operation. > > > > > This is no issue at all without this notation: > > > (complex-times [(my-complicated-algo x) (my-other-complicated-algo y)] > > [0 (another-algo z)]) > > The point here is not simply to add a literal notation, but to > integrate complex type handling into the math functions. Bifurcating > the math functions is a horrible idea. > > > Implementing this notation would obviously require a serious overhaul > > of clojure for a nice-to-have feature. > > Augmenting the math functions to support complex numbers requires a > serious overhaul. Augmenting the reader to handle the notation is > trivial, so I'm not clear on why you're obsessing about it.
It's a mischaracterization to say I'm obsessed about this. I think this whole idea is an waste of time and effort with no valuable outcome. Color me skeptical. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
