Re: Proposal: Arbitrary precision native scalar type

On 8 April 2024 10:12:31 BST, Saki Takamachi <saki@sakiot.com> wrote: > >I don't see any point in "scalar types" that feel almost like objects, because it >just feels like you're manipulating objects with procedural functions. Why not just use objects >instead? Again, I don't think "has more than one attribute" is the same as "feel almost like objects". But we're just getting further away from the current discussion, I think. >Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by "numbers have rounding modes". Numbers are >just numbers, and if there's something other than numbers in there, then to me it's an >object. The proposed class is called BCMath\Number, which implies that every instance of that class represents a number, just as every instance of a class called DateTime represents a date and time. In the end, a class is just a type definition. In pure OOP, it defines the type by its behaviour (methods / messages); in practice, it also defines the properties that each value of the type needs. So I am saying that if you were designing a class to represent numbers, you would start by saying "what properties does every number value have?" I don't think "rounding mode" would be on that list, so I don't think it belongs on a class called Number. Regards, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]