Shouldn’t “Number” be reserved for a foundation type similar to NSNumber? Or would this protocol actually serve that purpose?
I was planning to ask for a value type similar to NSNumber in phase 2. I built one for my own code (a struct around an enum which can be Int, Decimal, Rational, or Rational * π) and it is super useful for handling things like user input where the value could be an Integer or Float/Decimal, and I always want the highest precision until I ask for it in a particular form. If it came in as an integer, I know I can present it as an integer, and vice versa with decimal numbers. Sometimes it is nice to be able to say: “The user gave me a number” and not really care about the underlying representation... Thanks, Jon > On Jan 27, 2017, at 4:50 PM, Max Moiseev via swift-evolution > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Renaming Arithmetic to Number (and having SignedNumber) might actually end up > being a win, since we need to provide SignedNumber to maintain source code > compatibility anyway. > >> On Jan 27, 2017, at 8:34 AM, Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I'd always just assumed that Arithmetic was chosen so that SignedArithmetic >> wouldn't clash with the old SignedNumber. If that's not an issue, definitely >> agree that Number is the superior name. >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 08:30 T.J. Usiyan via swift-evolution >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Oh, I misread the arrows in that diagram and this makes much more sense now. >> >> Thanks. >> >> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Stephen Canon <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> The bitwise stuff isn't on ArithMETic | ARITHmetic | Number | whatever. >> >>> On Jan 27, 2017, at 9:13 AM, T.J. Usiyan via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Regarding `Number` or `Numeric`: Does everything in Arithmetic apply to >>> complex numbers and do we want it to? The bitwise stuff is where I think >>> that there might be a mismatch. >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> on Sun Jan 15 2017, Stephen Canon <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> > Responding to the thread in general here, not so much any specific email: >>> > >>> > “Arithmetic” at present is not a mathematically-precise concept, and >>> > it may be a mistake to make it be one[1]; it’s a >>> > mathematically-slightly-fuzzy “number” protocol. >>> >>> >>> In that case, should we consider renaming it to “Numeric” or even >>> “Number?” That would at least remove the question about how to >>> pronounce it. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -Dave >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> swift-evolution mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >>> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution >> <https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution> >> _______________________________________________ >> swift-evolution mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution > > _______________________________________________ > swift-evolution mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
_______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
