From: Jim Weirich <jim@...>
Date: 2005-05-28T01:43:54+09:00
Subject: Re: A different perspective on Ruby.


Glenn Parker said:
> There is no backwards or forwards here.

As long as we are only talking asthetics, then I agree that either choice
is co-equal, neither is backwards or forwards.  In fact, I would tend to
agree that sqrt(n) is more asthetically pleasing than n.sqrt.

However ...

But if we are talking maintenance (cf. "[sqrt as a method] spreads the
definition out, which complicates maintainence"), then I think it is clear
that the method implementation is (1) no more "spread out" that the
current implementation, (2) simpler to extend to for new types (e.g.
Complex).  It is the stand-alone function (not method) implementation that
complicates maintainence.  That is the part I thought was backwards.

-- 
-- Jim Weirich     jim@weirichhouse.org    http://onestepback.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)