Going back to the original question, should not the doc page say? method cos( Cool:D: --> Cool:D )
On 12/23/20 4:28 PM, Ralph Mellor wrote: > If a method does not explicitly specify its invocant type, it is set > to the type of the enclosing class. But it does not specify an invocant. It just leaves it blank > > The `cos` method is declared in the `Cool` class, so that is its > invocant type. > > The doc shows that it's declared in the `Cool` class. > > So, the doc is fine as is for the invocant. I was not asking if you could pick it up by context with other things written on the page. I was specifically asking about the definition line. Once you learn to read them, the definition lines can be really useful. My problem is that they are often incorrect, which put a hammer into learning them. > The returned value is a cosine, which, per the linked doc, > is a real number. The doc could perhaps show a return value > of Real:D. I like it! This look right to me (but keep in mind I don't know what I am doing) method cos( Cool:D: --> Real:D ) These two look wrong to me: method cos() method cos( --> Cool:D ) or --> Real:D Thank you for the wonderful explanation. -T