Number::Fraction
Dave Cross
dave at dave.org.uk
Fri May 3 11:34:49 BST 2013
Quoting "Th. J. van Hoesel" <th.j.v.hoesel at gmail.com>:
>
> Op 3 mei 2013, om 10:21 heeft Dave Cross het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Quoting "Th. J. van Hoesel" <th.j.v.hoesel at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> to me, it would make sense for 3 parameters:
>>>
>>> Number::Fraction->(int, num, den);
>>>
>>> but that would be helpful to work with the so called vulgar
>>> fractions and cold write things like:
>>> my $twothreefourth = Number::Fraction->new( 2, 3, 4);
>>
>> I think we're starting to get quite close to an area where
>> positional parameters are potentially confusing.
>>
>> Number::Fraction->new(1, 2); # num = 1, den = 2
>> Number::Fraction->new(1, 2, 3) # int = 1, num = 2, den = 3
>
> Positional Parameters can be a disaster, I know. But sticking to
> these THREE positional parameters max looks to me not impossible for
> the user. Also, Math::Fraction utilizes the same schema.
>
> Basically it would do the things below
>
> 1 parameter ----> integer
> and will be handled as @_[0] ÷ 1
> 2 parameter ----> fraction
> will be handled as @_[0] ÷ @_[1]
> 3 parameter ----> mixed
> will become { @_[0] × @_[2] + @_[1] } ÷ @_[2]
>
> and yes, that above is a bit nasty written, for there are quite a
> bit of 'exceptions' to handle --- and especially the 1-parameter
> version will have to deal with strings or references
Yes. But positional parameters that change their meaning as you add
another parameter to the *front* of the list. That sounds a little
scary to me. Or am I being paranoid?
>> I would probably think seriously about using named parameters here
>>
>> Number::Fraction->new(numerator => 1, denominator => 2);
>> Number::Fraction->new(integer => 1, numerator => 2, denominator => 3);
>
> Bu t you will then have to invent a way to remain backward
> compatible an maintain both ways
Moose makes that easy.
>> Of course, the fact that the names of the parameters are so long
>> really counts against you here, so you'd want to allow aliases -
>> int, den & num.
>>
>> In fact, it probably makes sense to move it all to Moose (or Moo, at least).
>
> Noooooooo! it was so simple to use
I'm not sure why you think that adding Moose will make it harder to use.
There's a branch on github which uses Moose.
https://github.com/davorg/number-fraction/tree/moose
Everything works pretty much the same way that it did before. All the
existing tests still pass.
>>> can I drop other cases or do you prefer to allow method calls with
>>> unlimited number of parameters ???
>>
>> You need to deal with idiots who ignore the documentation and call
>> the methods with the incorrect parameters. Currently, if you call
>> new() with more than two parameters, the extra ones are just
>> silently ignored. I think I like that option best, but I wouldn't
>> object if the constructor just died instead.
>
> I'd prefer to let anything die that does not comply with the
> supplied interface or API.
Like I said. I really wouldn't object to that. But you still need to
check for it. In the Moose branch, many invalid parameter combinations
now die (not all of them yet).
> One thing I was a bit worried about is the fact you accept
> denominators equal to ZERO ---- Arghhh!. Although totally insane,
> it's not 'your' fault that division by zero is illegal. Let perl die
> because of that fact, not the Fraction Module.
Relying on Perl's built-in error checking whenever possible sounds
sensible to me.
>> p.s. This conversation would be much easier to follow if we all
>> used the same quoting style :-/
>
> better ? :-)
Much better. Thanks :)
Dave...
More information about the london.pm
mailing list