Re: Beginner's Language?

["Frank A. Adrian" <fadrian@uswest.net>]

Yes, I was talking about the set of integers.  Most languages call the type
something based on the word integer, leading the user to assume that one is,
in fact, working with an element from that set.  Although you are correct
that it is sometime desirable to work with elements from alternative sets, I
would also think that this is not the norm and that it would be better to
actually declare the variables whose values are taken from these sets as
such and not simply let the user to stumble upon the fact willy-nilly.  One
could also make a case that one should not canonize the size of these
elements, defined by accident of hardware, but instead provide a specific
data-type for any integral sub-ring the user desires.  But then, that would
ask the language designers and compiler writers to actually sweat the
details.

Worse is better may be a model of what is, but it doesn't have to be a model
of what will be...

faa

"Johan Kullstam" <kullstam@ne.mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:m2snhjuhp2.fsf@euler.axel.nom...
> "Frank A. Adrian" <fadrian@uswest.net> writes:
>
> > P.S.  Any language where you can add two positive numbers together and
get a
> > negative number is inherently broken.
>
> it depends upon what you mean by "number" and what you mean by
> "negative".  sometimes you really do want to work in the ring
> Z_{2^32}.  e.g., i often represent angles in terms of 2^32 quanta per
> revolution.  when the 32 bit "int" wraps, so does the angle --
> exactly as intended.
>
> i agree that it is a pain to have no way to use integers Z, but are
> forced to choose among Z_{2^N} for a few ill-defined choices of N.
>
> > It is a sign of the language designer and compiler writer choosing
> > their own convenience over yours.
>
> --
> J o h a n  K u l l s t a m
> [kullstam@ne.mediaone.net]
> Don't Fear the Penguin!
>