On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Tudor Girba <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the nice discussion. > > So, after all arguments, we will remove Number>>, from Bloc. > > I think using Number>>, for vector creation makes quite some sense. > However, we have already seen that we have a few places where we have > vectors: Bloc, PolyMath and Moose-Algos. The Bloc needs are smaller than > the needs from PolyMath (we need only a limited set of abilities). So, > until we have one consensus of having one vector in the image, we can leave > room for playing. > > In the meantime we have: > > 1. > BlVector x: 10 y: 20 > BlVector x: 10 y: 20 z: 30 > > or: > > 2. > (10@20) asBlocVector > (10@20@30) asBlocVector > The 2nd option reads ok, but it has the downside that it needs an extra > object (the point). > Would it be possible/desirable to have this as a single primitive backed keyword message? (10@:20@:30) Perhaps a goal for the consensus on one-true-vector form integrated into the Image? Except at the moment "@:" doesn't parse. cheers -ben > > An interesting thing about Number>>@ is that it is backed by a primitive. > This can be quite relevant and I think it would be worthwhile thinking > about vector/matrix specific optimizations as well. That is why, in the > future, it would be interesting to consider primitives for vector/matrix > creation. > > Cheers, > Doru > > > > On Oct 26, 2017, at 5:10 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Tudor Girba-2 wrote > >> You mean like sending @ to a number, right? :) > > > > Ha ha, you got me ;) > > > > > > > > ----- > > Cheers, > > Sean > > -- > > Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Developers-f1294837. > html > > > > -- > www.tudorgirba.com > www.feenk.com > > "Not knowing how to do something is not an argument for how it cannot be > done." > > >
