Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ius1.cs.cmu.edu!edw
From: edw@ius1.cs.cmu.edu (Eddie Wyatt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Complex type ?
Message-ID: <1013@ius1.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sun, 10-May-87 15:43:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: ius1.1013
Posted: Sun May 10 15:43:47 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 10-May-87 19:09:20 EDT
References: <7264@brl-adm.ARPA> <734@sdchema.sdchem.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 65

In article <734@sdchema.sdchem.UUCP>, tps@sdchem.UUCP (Tom Stockfisch) writes:
> This only solves the problem for the type "complex".  What about vectors
> and matrices and (use your imagination)?  What C really needs is the
> operator-overloading facility already available in C++.  With this you
> can re-define + and * for any new data type you please.  Even if you
> use this only for type complex, its still a gain because you can use
> your favorite complex operation algorithms.
> 
> What we number-crunchers really need to do is convince the X3J11 committee
> to borrow just this one more idea (I promise, this is the absolute last one,
> but in my opinion the most important) from C++ and put it in the new
> standard.
> 
> 
> 
> || Tom Stockfisch, UCSD Chemistry	tps%chem@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu
> 					or  sdcsvax!sdchem!tps

  No, what C really needs is not operator-overloading.  There already 
exist a class of languages that provide such facilities, use them instead.
What you're sugguesting is to change C into a data abstact language, which
is not the intended purpose.  If you want  a data abstract language that
looks like C use C++, just like you said. Listen here people, C is not
Fortrash, Pascal, Ada or Lisp, it is C, a simple procedural oriented language
that allows one to do some very powerful and sometimes unkosher things.

    I view the language as a modified form of assemble language.  It gives
you the high level control constructs of block structured languages, yet
allows you to get at some of the low level operations of the machine
such as the bit operations.  By the way, in the current project that
I am working on, if I had had a say in the language we are using, I would
have choosen a data abstract language, posibly C++.  I find it the case
that I need routines for queues and hash tables for many different
data objects.  I have written generic queue and hash table routines
but I have some very unkosher code in one place where I do take advantage
of sizeof(int) == sizeof(char *) on the machines that I work on. I should
sometime go back and change that.

  Anyway, back to the original topic of complex types.  If the complex number
is added to the language should the real and imaginary parts be represented
as doubles or singles.  Or should there be two types of complex numbers
long complex and the complex?  What are the semantics of complex++ and
complex--?  Also should any semantic meaning be given to complex1 < complex2?

  I personal have nothing against adding the complex type to the  language.  
But if it is added, I at least hope that all the language semantic issues are
WELL thought out before implimenting them.


						Eddie Wyatt

e-mail edw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu
-- 
					Eddie Wyatt

They say there are strangers, who threaten us
In our immigrants and infidels
They say there is strangeness, too dangerous
In our theatres and bookstore shelves
Those who know what's best for us-
Must rise and save us from ourselves

Quick to judge ... Quick to anger ... Slow to understand...
Ignorance and prejudice and fear [all] Walk hand in hand.
					- RUSH