Samuel,
Thanks for your lengthy insight. I'll just take up the challenge at the end:
I do not see reasons to make GUIs labels exactly matching the
technical typeofs.
But, please convince us.
I think the interface should be as transparent and informative as
possible. It should confirm facts, not obscure them.
It should never create a cognitive dissonance in the user. If I have
learned that a type is called "constant", which is confirmed by the
outcome of applying typeof, I'll find it strange, to say the least, to
see that the type appears as "double" in the variable Browser. At a
minimum, I'll lose time trying to find out what's going on; I'll
probably ask on this list, causing others, probably yourself, to lose
their time answering, and so on.
Finally, there can be certainly no objection to use consistently a
unique term for a single concept across the program. The only problem is
that someone would have to change the string (or text :)) in the
apropriate code, but it wouldn't be much of a burden and, as you said,
there would be no backward compatibility problems.
By the way, if constant were changed to double (or to number or num.ber
--I don't get the dot...--), then as this might cause some backward
compatibility, consider taking the oportunity also to replace "ce" by
"cell", and "st" by "struct", which are the offical type names,
Regards,
Federico Miyara
On 05/12/2019 19:23, Samuel Gougeon wrote:
Le 29/11/2019 à 06:57, Federico Miyara a écrit :
Dear all,
I'm trying to elucidate some details regarding types. The most basic
type, corresponding to real or complex decimal numbers (or vectors,
matrices and hypermatrices with this kind of components) is called
"constant" by the function typeof (and so listed in the documentation).
However, the variable browser lists them as "double".
Both are sucking legacy (i hope there is no copyright on this
expression). But if we should sort awful things, a variable of
"constant" is clearly the worst, in my not humble opinion.
"double" is awful as well because personally, as a user in 2019, i
strictly don't care about that, 40 years ago, there was a dominating
"single precision" encoding, and then came the "double precision"
encoding, and everybody was really happy, you know. Still today, we
should remember this great event. OK, OK, OK. We are still very happy,
indeed.
In Scilab, there is no single precision encoding. May be we should
propose implementing it, to look like our so loved eternal and
discrete and exclusive inspirator.
For any normal newby, before being twisted-minded by historical and
external habits, a "double" is a number, or even better, for
interfaces where short and explicit keywords are welcome, a num.ber
And for the same fresh user, what does a string mean? A rope, a chain.
Now, when comprehensive normal -- so very creative -- persons ask why
we don't name a byte a string of bits, you know which answer they
receive? None. Very strange world, isn't it? Very.
Yet, "Text" is a word even shorter than "String". It tells exactly
what this stuff is actually.
In Scilab, a text is NOT a characters string: the basic block is the
text, not the character. And part() helps.
But anyway, which user really cares about how texts are encoded? Is it
really the matter?
This is somewhat confusing.
Oo yes. Sometimes we pay to get confused. With Scilab, it's free. Get,
try, and love it. Or report.
It seems that "double" refers to the way each individual component is
encoded while constant may refer to the fact that any array
containing doubles is o type constant.
In the case of integers, for instance we have int64 as reported by
typeof, but in the Variable Browser it is listed a bit more in full
as "Integer 64". While this is also slightly inconsistent, it is not
to complain very much about.
In the case of rationals, typeof returns "rational" while the
Variable Browser callsit "r (Tlist)"
Cell array type is called "ce" by typeof but "Cell" in the Variabe
Browser
User-defined types in tlists and mlists are designed by the
user-defined type name by typeof, while the variable browser adds
"(Tlist)" or "(Mlist)"
Functions, libraries and impliit lists such as $ are not listed in
the variable bowser but are correctly reported by typeof
We can add them in the list, through the /Filter/ menu.
Anyway, beside the "constant" typeof, i personally do not care too
much about technical typeof names.
Obviously, it is always highly preferable to choose carefully reserved
keywords when creating them.
Some typeof improvements have been done for Scilab 6. And indeed we
could wonder why this "constant" typeof has not been changed.
Too frequently used in existing codes? Probably.
But the situation in GUIs is quite different. Back-compatibility
issues are somewhat less acute than in the code.
In the variables browser and editor,
* an array of decimal real numbers could be tagged "num.ber"
* an array of complex numbers : "complex", despite it is the same
"constant" typeof. It's not the topic.
* a sparse array of complex numbers : "sparse complex"
* an array of characters string : "text"
* an array of int64 integers : "int64". It is definitely clear, and
shorter than "Integer 64" or "64 bits integers", that tell nothing
more or better than "int64"
* an array of rationals: "rational", indeed.
* etc
I do not see reasons to make GUIs labels exactly matching the
technical typeofs.
But, please convince us.
Cheers
Samuel
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.scilab.org
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
users@lists.scilab.org
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
