Re: [pure-lang-users] Numeric Arguments

[Libor S. <li...@gm...>]

I was not really thinking about rationals and complex numbers and anything else yet.
Just int, bigint and double, so far. Though I expect others could be
extended in the same "permissive" spirit.

Here are my defs for ndiv and slash (new /). In practice, you could of course just add
these extra cases to the existing definitions without using new symbols:

infixl 7 ndiv;
x::double ndiv y = int x div y;
x ndiv y::double = int (x/y);
x ndiv y = x div y;

> list slash
infixl 7 slash;
x::int slash y::int = x div y if x mod y==0;
x slash y = x/y;

I think they might be conformant with Eddie's implicit definition.

Libor


On Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:29:05 +0100, Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...> wrote:

> Ok, do you have definitions of div and mod for all other cases? Note
> that then we also need definitions for the rational and complex numbers
> in math.pure.
>
> I must admit that I never gave this much thought. Pure inherited div and
> mod from Q which inherited them from Pascal which in turn inherited them
> (I guess) from Algol 60. I'm not against extending them in a reasonable
> manner. :)
>
> Albert
>