Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from July 2015
I want to change the OO design of the Math-BigInt distribution, but before
I do so, I would like your opinion.
Current implementation:
Currently, Math::BigInt is the superclass of Math::BigFloat, which in turn
is the superclass of Math::BigRat. This OO design doesn't make sense. None
of Math::BigInt, Math::BigFloat, and Math::BigRat have an internal
structure which is a superset/subset of any of the others. Methods like
band(), bor() etc. make sense on Math::BigInt objects, but don't make sense
on Math::BigFloat objects and Math::BigRat objects, who inherits the
methods band(), bor() etc.
TELS, who introduced this design, seemed to be aware of the problems, and
as a sort of workaround let Math::BigFloat->isa("Math::BigInt") return
false. Ditto for Math::BigRat. This doesn't solve the real problems and
causes problems (e.g., endless recursion) when creating subclasses.
New implementation:
I want to introduce Math::BigNum as a virtual parent class, and let
Math::BigInt, Math::BigFloat, and Math::BigRat be subclasses of
Math::BigNum. Math::BigNum will implement the very few methods that
Math::BigInt, Math::BigFloat, and Math::BigRat have in common as well as
some internal utility functions.
Would this be OK?
Regards,
Peter John Acklam
(current maintainer of Math-BigInt, Math-BigRat, and bignum)
Thread Next