Hi nicolas I would like to have a nice complex package. Do you remember the lengthly discussion that we got in pharo two years ago because the old implementation was not good. I still have the code somewhere. Now if you take the lead on that issue we will follow you.
Stef > Hi, > > Facts: > - Complex is present in Squeak trunk image but not used in Kernel > - Complex is absent from Pharo image. > This breaks portability of some packages. > > I suggest putting Complex in its own package in squeaksource. This can > work for Pharo alone. > I also suggest to optionally remove Squeak.Complex from trunk. > > There are then other choices: > - the name of the package : can be Complex or Math-Complex (I already > put a few Math-* in squeak source...) > - the name of the class can be Complex or ComplexNumber > Specifically I don't like isComplex, many objects could respond true > because complicated; > isComplexNumber is much more explicit. > We could also think of having complex expressions in a symbolic > algebra, and isComplexNumber would be true only for a literal value.. > > What I could eventually do is publish an old Complex in package > Complex for backard compatibility and an updated ComplexNumber in a > Math-Complex package... > > How many of you use Complex ? > What do you think of these proposals ? > > Nicolas >
