From: Jonas Hartmann <Mail@...>
Date: 2005-05-28T03:30:51+09:00
Subject: Re: A different perspective on Ruby.

Jim Weirich wrote:
> 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.
oh no! its not at all!

n is an Integer object and sqrt is a method on that object so it must 
be n.sqrt - you could as well implement the third square root of 8 by 
typing 8.sqrt 3 (I am not such a big math-guy... so maybe you could 
just send over the whole exponent - 8^(1/2) => 8.sqrt is equal to 
8.sqrt .5 is equal to 8.sqrt(0.5) is equal to 8.sqrt(1/2) and so on... 
well just my ideas on sqrt method - exuse me if its bs ;-(

> 
> 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.
>