Re: Why no Complex Arithmetic ?

Article View: comp.lang.oberon

Article #1253

#1253

From: Stephan Eggermont
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1996 10:25

16 lines
1075 bytes

Richard Pitre (pitre@n5160d.nrl.navy.mil) wrote:
> Why leave out complex numbers and complex
> transcendental functions? 

For a very simple reason: there are two equally viable implementations
Do you want an angle/radius or real/imaginary representation?
Please consider the consequences of a choice. If you don't show 
(explicit) what choice you made, you won't have any idea of the 
run-time consequences of what you write.

Stephan

> If you don't think its a problem then its because you've never tried
> to do it. The readability goes to hell. 

If you think it is a problem you have never tried it ;-)

Technical Details

Message-ID: <4jqvad$eh8@toad.stack.urc.tue.nl>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!toad.stack.urc.tue.nl!not-for-mail

References: <4j9rvk$pn2@ra.nrl.navy.mil>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!toad.stack.urc.tue.nl!not-for-mail
From: stephan@stack.urc.tue.nl (Stephan Eggermont)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.oberon
Subject: Re: Why no Complex Arithmetic ?
Date: 2 Apr 1996 12:25:17 +0200
Organization: MCGV Stack, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands.
Message-ID: <4jqvad$eh8@toad.stack.urc.tue.nl>
References: <4j9rvk$pn2@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
NNTP-Posting-Host: toad.stack.urc.tue.nl
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Reply to Parent Message