pocomath/src/complex/Types/Complex.mjs

28 lines
945 B
JavaScript
Raw Normal View History

import PocomathInstance from '../../core/PocomathInstance.mjs'
const Complex = new PocomathInstance('Complex')
refactor(Complex): Now a template type! This means that the real and imaginary parts of a Complex must now be the same type. This seems like a real benefit: a Complex with a number real part and a bigint imaginary part does not seem sensible. Note that this is now straining typed-function in (at least) the following ways: (1) In this change, it was necessary to remove the logic that the square root of a negative number calls complex square root, which then calls back to the number square root in its algorithm. (This was creating a circular reference in the typed-function which the old implementation of Complex was somehow sidestepping.) (2) typed-function could not follow conversions that would be allowed by uninstantiated templates (e.g. number => Complex<number> if the latter template has not been instantiated) and so the facility for instantiating a template was surfaced (and for example is called explicitly in the demo loader `extendToComplex`. Similarly, this necessitated making the unary signature of the `complex` conversion function explicit, rather than just via implicit conversion to Complex. (3) I find the order of implementations is mattering more in typed-function definitions, implying that typed-function's sorting algorithm is having trouble distinguishing alternatives. But otherwise, the conversion went quite smoothly and I think is a good demo of the power of this approach. And I expect that it will work even more smoothly if some of the underlying facilities (subtypes, template types) are integrated into typed-function.
2022-08-06 15:27:44 +00:00
// Base type that should generally not be used directly
Complex.installType('Complex', {
refactor(Complex): Now a template type! This means that the real and imaginary parts of a Complex must now be the same type. This seems like a real benefit: a Complex with a number real part and a bigint imaginary part does not seem sensible. Note that this is now straining typed-function in (at least) the following ways: (1) In this change, it was necessary to remove the logic that the square root of a negative number calls complex square root, which then calls back to the number square root in its algorithm. (This was creating a circular reference in the typed-function which the old implementation of Complex was somehow sidestepping.) (2) typed-function could not follow conversions that would be allowed by uninstantiated templates (e.g. number => Complex<number> if the latter template has not been instantiated) and so the facility for instantiating a template was surfaced (and for example is called explicitly in the demo loader `extendToComplex`. Similarly, this necessitated making the unary signature of the `complex` conversion function explicit, rather than just via implicit conversion to Complex. (3) I find the order of implementations is mattering more in typed-function definitions, implying that typed-function's sorting algorithm is having trouble distinguishing alternatives. But otherwise, the conversion went quite smoothly and I think is a good demo of the power of this approach. And I expect that it will work even more smoothly if some of the underlying facilities (subtypes, template types) are integrated into typed-function.
2022-08-06 15:27:44 +00:00
test: z => z && typeof z === 'object' && 're' in z && 'im' in z
})
refactor(Complex): Now a template type! This means that the real and imaginary parts of a Complex must now be the same type. This seems like a real benefit: a Complex with a number real part and a bigint imaginary part does not seem sensible. Note that this is now straining typed-function in (at least) the following ways: (1) In this change, it was necessary to remove the logic that the square root of a negative number calls complex square root, which then calls back to the number square root in its algorithm. (This was creating a circular reference in the typed-function which the old implementation of Complex was somehow sidestepping.) (2) typed-function could not follow conversions that would be allowed by uninstantiated templates (e.g. number => Complex<number> if the latter template has not been instantiated) and so the facility for instantiating a template was surfaced (and for example is called explicitly in the demo loader `extendToComplex`. Similarly, this necessitated making the unary signature of the `complex` conversion function explicit, rather than just via implicit conversion to Complex. (3) I find the order of implementations is mattering more in typed-function definitions, implying that typed-function's sorting algorithm is having trouble distinguishing alternatives. But otherwise, the conversion went quite smoothly and I think is a good demo of the power of this approach. And I expect that it will work even more smoothly if some of the underlying facilities (subtypes, template types) are integrated into typed-function.
2022-08-06 15:27:44 +00:00
// Now the template type: Complex numbers are actually always homeogeneous
// in their component types.
Complex.installType('Complex<T>', {
infer: ({typeOf, joinTypes}) => z => joinTypes([typeOf(z.re), typeOf(z.im)]),
test: testT => z => testT(z.re) && testT(z.im),
from: {
refactor(Complex): Now a template type! This means that the real and imaginary parts of a Complex must now be the same type. This seems like a real benefit: a Complex with a number real part and a bigint imaginary part does not seem sensible. Note that this is now straining typed-function in (at least) the following ways: (1) In this change, it was necessary to remove the logic that the square root of a negative number calls complex square root, which then calls back to the number square root in its algorithm. (This was creating a circular reference in the typed-function which the old implementation of Complex was somehow sidestepping.) (2) typed-function could not follow conversions that would be allowed by uninstantiated templates (e.g. number => Complex<number> if the latter template has not been instantiated) and so the facility for instantiating a template was surfaced (and for example is called explicitly in the demo loader `extendToComplex`. Similarly, this necessitated making the unary signature of the `complex` conversion function explicit, rather than just via implicit conversion to Complex. (3) I find the order of implementations is mattering more in typed-function definitions, implying that typed-function's sorting algorithm is having trouble distinguishing alternatives. But otherwise, the conversion went quite smoothly and I think is a good demo of the power of this approach. And I expect that it will work even more smoothly if some of the underlying facilities (subtypes, template types) are integrated into typed-function.
2022-08-06 15:27:44 +00:00
T: t => ({re: t, im: t-t}), // hack: maybe need a way to call zero(T)
U: convert => u => {
const t = convert(u)
return ({re: t, im: t-t})
},
'Complex<U>': convert => cu => ({re: convert(cu.re), im: convert(cu.im)})
}
})
Complex.promoteUnary = {
refactor(Complex): Now a template type! This means that the real and imaginary parts of a Complex must now be the same type. This seems like a real benefit: a Complex with a number real part and a bigint imaginary part does not seem sensible. Note that this is now straining typed-function in (at least) the following ways: (1) In this change, it was necessary to remove the logic that the square root of a negative number calls complex square root, which then calls back to the number square root in its algorithm. (This was creating a circular reference in the typed-function which the old implementation of Complex was somehow sidestepping.) (2) typed-function could not follow conversions that would be allowed by uninstantiated templates (e.g. number => Complex<number> if the latter template has not been instantiated) and so the facility for instantiating a template was surfaced (and for example is called explicitly in the demo loader `extendToComplex`. Similarly, this necessitated making the unary signature of the `complex` conversion function explicit, rather than just via implicit conversion to Complex. (3) I find the order of implementations is mattering more in typed-function definitions, implying that typed-function's sorting algorithm is having trouble distinguishing alternatives. But otherwise, the conversion went quite smoothly and I think is a good demo of the power of this approach. And I expect that it will work even more smoothly if some of the underlying facilities (subtypes, template types) are integrated into typed-function.
2022-08-06 15:27:44 +00:00
'Complex<T>': ({'self(T)': me, complex}) => z => complex(me(z.re), me(z.im))
}
export {Complex}