[chuck-users] cast dur to time?

[Kassen]

On 07/01/2008, mike clemow <gelfmuse at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, but that's far weirder!  I would not have expected that to be legal.
> So "now" is a strange animal indeed, having traits of both time and
> duration...
>
> Actually, it looks like any time type divided by a duration returns a
> float.  hrm...  I wouldn't have guessed.
>

Yes, and it gets curiouser and curiouser.

Any time (including now) divided by a duration returns a float yet a time
divided by a float returns a "complaint". I'm not certified mathematician
but this seems wrong-ish to me.

I mean; if X/Y = Z then (and only then) X/Z = Y or we lose reflexivity in
multiplication. In a way that's what we do if we need to devide now by a
duration, then multiply the result by one in order to "cast time to
duration".

I agree that what I suggested *is* rather implicit but I'd also say that
cast is a explicit way to do this. I don't think I'd call it more implicit
then the (potential) data-loss in casting from a float to a int.



I still don't like the idea that a time can be cast as a
> duration-from-vm-start, however, a "birth" keyword makes sense.  Consider
> this:
>
> 2::second => now;  // is kind of like "for the next two seconds" or "two
> seconds from now", etc.
>

<snip>
I agree, but consider Ge said "2::second => now" is shorthand for "2::second
+=> now", I agree with this though I too use the shorthand.



your way is clever:
>  //strongly typed meets strongly timed :¬p
> //at least it runs and works....
> now - ((now /samp)::samp) => time birth;
>
> But I feel like you shouldn't have to do that.
>

Thank you and here we agree completely (as opposed to 90% elsewhere :¬) ). I
would say that this trick is downright abusive and I'd argue that it
involves a implicit, hidden, cast.


  I see how you could easily abstract this using functions, but a keyword
> for the time that the VM started seems like it would be easier, more global,
> etc.
>
> at least, this returns a -1:
>
> now - ((now /samp)::samp) => time birth;
> <<<(birth - 2::second) /2::second>>>;
>
> I was worried...  :)
>


:¬)

the sky isn't falling but considering some of my mathematical games above I
think "time" isn't as developed as a datatype as duration is. I would -at
this stage- probably recommend developing it further with a more clear
relationship between time and duration. From there on keywords and/or
casting might make more sense. At that stage either or both might turn out
to be needed or make sense.

To put it in different words; I see issues here but I realise proposing a
cast option was a hasty call to make. At least it made for a good start of a
debate and I'm still not convinced yet it's a bad idea per-sé.

Yours,
Kas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20080107/a9602088/attachment.htm