Jocoplien(a)cs.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/25/02 10:16:43, lourenci(a)lsi.usp.br writes:
>
> << As I told you, I would never derive a real class from a complex class.
> I would extend the real class to the complex class. >>
>
> To me, this is somewhat ridiculous.
>
As far as I remembered I studied complex number at high school more
than thirty years ago! In Self you can indicate the coordinates through
analytic geometry or in complex form. So I cannot really model it without
reviewing things.
>
> At best, such an approach would be very unhermeneutic :-) It
> is not thinking even at an epistemelogical level, let alone a
> hermeneutic level. The semiotics at this level are like runes
> in most of the languages you have mentioned.
Highly probable!
I hope Jecel can contribute or Constantinos to the discussion
if it is possible from a prototype concerned with modeling
real number to derive another prototype concerned with
modeling complex number or if this reasoning is highly
independent or if it is right to develop a real class from
a complex class.
>
>
> In the book I talked about before (by Lamport) I think his claim
> is to get beyond runes to the fundamental nub of things. I am
> skeptical of such approaches because they suggest that the
> problem is independent of the solution taken.
My approach is seamless in all levels. Each further level must
devise the hermeneutic reasoning of the domain level. And I mean
the hermeneutic reasoning is not really explicit in the world
around us. Mandelbrot revealed this through his geometry.
SEmiotics revealed the world is meaningful but only
semiotics shows how to perceive this.
Only recently postquantum physicists perceive the world as above
all information. Peirce perceived this from 1838 when he was born
until 1914!:-)
Well I will proceed my reading from James Noble et al's Design patterns
as signs. Metaphor is rather the way children see the world until
seven years old!
Since Selfers see the world as it really is and are able to factor out
true commonalities by analogy to build a more complex prototype
I think this sort of reasoning deserves especial attention too.
I hope someone can respond to my naïve formulation.
Is is possible to derive a complex object from a real object in Self or
any other language? Apparently they cover complete different realities.
> Both self and
> C++ introduce their own kinds of problems, and that means the
> problem is modeled differently for the respective solution
> technologies. Different languages, different semiotics, different
> models.
>
> Here's some real code; let's get concrete, and then abstract
> (or, if you prefer, use the concrete as a means for
> exhibiting the abstract). This all comes down to code at
> some point, and arguments short of code run the risk
> of being circular and imprecise. Can you show me how you would
> extend the following (or any) Real class to be a Complex?
>
> Then maybe we will have a baseline should Jecel choose to
> contribute a self example...
>
> class Real {
> public:
> friend Real operator+(const Real &r1, const Real &r2) {
> register Real retval = r1;
> retval += r2;
> return retval;
> }
> friend Real operator-(const Real &r1, const Real &r2) ...
> friend Real operator*(const Real &r1, const Real &r2) ...
> ....
> Real &operator+=(const Real &r1) { rep += r1.rep; return *this; }
> Real &operator-=(const Real &r1) { rep -= r1.rep; return *this; }
> Real &opeartor+=(const Real &r1) ...
> ....
> Real(double r1): rep(r1) { }
> Real(const Real &r1): rep(r1.rep) { }
> Real operator=(const Real &r1) { rep = r1.rep; return *this; }
> ~Real() { }
> private:
> double rep;
> };
>
> class Complex: public (?) Real {
> ???
> };
Bye
Albertina