Re: Complex numbers & Oakwood suggestions

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

Sander van der Wal wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Feb 96 6:54:33 EST acken@informatik.uni-kl.de (you) wrote:

> > Well, there is always the option to extend the language to include
> > COMPLEX and LONGCOMPLEX as basic types.  The Oakwood Guidelines deal
> > with most of the details, and it is fairly simple to integrate into
> > the front-end.  So, if there are no strong objections on this mailing
> > list against adding those types, I propose to extend the language as
> > sketched out in the Oakwood text.

[...]

> >           Is anyone in favor of these additions?
>
> It's a can of worms :-) I think that we should first think this over
> (a lot) and discuss the implications, before committing ourselves
> to implementing complex numbers.

And best left unopened, at least for now. I think there is a big difference
between implementing a compiler and designing a language, and this sort of
thing is clearly in the realm of language design. I have no particular
objection to complex numbers or any other construct that may or may not go
into a language, but there are wider issues to consider. Like it or not,
Oberon-2 is now quite well-defined and widely implemented. Few of those
implementations have chosen to extend the core language. In my experience
no matter how well-intentioned an extension is, it becomes a positive
barrier to portability, and I happen to think portability is important.

Frank