Library hierarchy, contd.
Dylan Thurston
dpt@math.harvard.edu
Thu, 24 May 2001 08:32:59 -0400
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 05:43:01PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Data
> Complex -- H98
This seems decidedly out of place here: complex numbers are not
interesting as a data structure, but as a mathematical construct.
(I.e., the instance of Num is the interesting part.)
Part of the motivation for a "Mathematics" hierarchy is to have a
natural place where, e.g., "Complex" would belong.
> Data
> Int
This seems somewhat less out of place, since, IIRC, the functions in
this library deal with low-level representation.
> Algebra
> DomainConstructor -- formerly DoCon
> Geometric -- formerly BasGeomAlg
> Numeric -- exports std. H98 numeric type classes
> DSP
> FastFourierTransform
> Noise
> Oscillator
You make a good point that these current libraries do not fit all that
well under "Mathematics". Maybe we should keep "Numeric" and create a new
"Mathematics" hierarchy which would contain:
- the std. H98 classes. [Incidentally, I agree with Sergio
Mechvelliani that the "Num" class is badly named. I would vastly
prefer to call the class "Ring".]
- the Complex class
- Mechvelliani's classes
- arbitrary precision arithmetic
- matrix classes
Maybe "Computational" would be a better name than "Numeric"?
Best,
Dylan Thurston