Re: [BLACKBOX] BlackBox 1.6 final version?

From: [at]} <Georgy>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:35:26 +0200

Well, I do realise that you can define your own COMPLEX type. The problem is that mathematical operations like +,-,*,/ should then be defined as functions. It means any more or less complicated algebraic expression becomes unreadable, which is not quite compatible with the spirit of "keep it simple" philosophy:-)
Asking for the ability to define operators in BlackBox is probably asking too much. If you really need it you'd better switch to other language. For example in Active Oberon it seems to be an easy exercise:,250.0.html

In BlackBox I would be already happy with the built-in support for COMPLEX as described in the Oakwood Guidelines for Oberon-2.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Marc Martin <marc{([at]})nowhere.xy

> I have a question: is there any chance that COMPLEX datatypes, as
> discussed in the Oakwood Guidelines for Oberon-2, would be implemented
> in BlackBox?

I do mathematical programming, and it's always seemed fine to me that
complex numbers can be defined by the user with RECORD types. Although
if you want to use operators with complex types, perhaps you really should be
asking for the ability to define operators? Some languages allow you to
do this, including Zonnon, which seems to be Oberon/Modula-2/Pascal
*without* the "keep it simple" philosophy.


To unsubscribe, send a message with body "SIGNOFF BLACKBOX" to LISTSERV{([at]})nowhere.xy---- To unsubscribe, send a message with body "SIGNOFF BLACKBOX" to LISTSERV{([at]})nowhere.xy
Received on Mon Jun 29 2009 - 09:35:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Sep 26 2013 - 06:30:46 UTC