refactor(Complex): Now a template type! #46
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
No description provided.
Delete Branch "template_complex"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
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 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 necessitatedmaking the unary signature of the
complexconversion 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.
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.