- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 22:20:39 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10072 --- Comment #6 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2010-07-13 22:20:38 --- >The right solution is to have: Math Functions Exponential Trigonometric The section structure of this document was designed, I think, to help readers find their way around the spec, not to provide a rigorous taxonomy of the functions on offer. As a taxonomy, the hierarchy considered as a whole is indefensible; if we had a section headed "Math Functions" then it would immediately invite comment as to why a number of other functions were not present in this section. But I'm going to have to reconsider the section headings anyway as the WG has today decided to add a number of other functions such as exp, log, and pow. > Presenting pi as a function seems weird and unnatural Interesting reaction: I'm surprised by it. I have to say that to me presenting a constant as a zero-argument function seems entirely natural. The only other way of doing it that comes to mind is a built-in global variable, and that seems less consistent with other design decisions made in the language, notably the presentation of true() and false(). >While the constructors true() and false() give us a *unique* representation of all possible boolean values, introducing functions to represent numerical constants results in a *redundant* representation for some numerical values. I'm sorry, I don't follow that argument: why is it bad to have a redundant representation of some numbers? Is it bad that in "2" and "+2" we have two redundant representations of the number 2? If you don't like presenting pi() as a function, what would you prefer? -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 22:20:41 UTC