Re: Some modules from Modula-2

[Frank Copeland <fjc@wossname.apana.org.au>]

On Dec 18 Mike Griebling wrote:

> > Mike wrote:
> I have no objection to your naming convention.  It will be implemented so.
> It will have additional functions which are not part of the ISO standard
> however (sinh, cosh, tanh, inverses, and a few others).

If you are going to extend a module defined in some kind of standard, my
preference is to put the extensions in another module with a similar name.
Otherwise it defeats the purpose of having a standardised module.

> > I don't see how you can conveniently implement the Complex modules
> > without a builtin COMPLEX type.  Take for example the function
> >   PROCEDURE conj (z: COMPLEX): COMPLEX;
> > This can only be declared when COMPLEX is a pointer type, which isn't
> > very nice.  And complex constants like "i = CMPLX (0.0, 1.0)" aren't
> > possible at all.
>
> What's wrong with a pointer-based implementation?  The complex "constants"

I don't think there's anything wrong with it either. Given an efficient
garbage collector, that is.

Frank