Re: [q-lang-users] Q 7.2 RC2

[Albert G. <Dr....@t-...>]

Rob Hubbard wrote:
>>From my experience with C++, containers are a real pain when
> debugging. I don't care how a set is implemented - for me it's a black
> box - just tell me what's in it.

Well, in the debugger custom unparsings must be disabled anyway, since 
otherwise the output from the debugger, i.e. the printed rules and 
reductions, looks just plain wrong. (I've actually tried that.)

OTOH, the debugger gives you the option to reduce the level of detail, 
and it's possible to evaluate arbitrary expressions in the context of 
the current rule, so that you can inspect exactly those parts of the 
data structure that you want to see, in the representation that you 
choose. Q's debugger is much more powerful than most C/C++ debuggers in 
this respect.

> Thus, I believe unparsing containers is the right thing to do.

Ok, I guess that I can just add this to the prelude as an experimental 
feature, so that we can give it a try and see how everybody likes it.

> 2.5%1 should be Float. (%) should be exact *if possible*. But 2.5 is
> not exact (it is "2.5+epsilon". To make the result Rational would be
> to hide inexactness.

I fully agree with that. The only alternative I see would be to make (%) 
undefined on inexact numbers which would be very inconvenient.

Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu...
WWW:    http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag