Integer size => AlephNull
To be consistent with the #do: issue, Integer size should not be null. We know that we only deal with finite sets, we can take advantage of this knowledge, which is not just an implementation detail. It is true that SmallInteger does expose an implementation trick, but it is a "bad" class anyway and we should get rid of it.
AlephNull is not null. it is the number of elements in a non-recursively ennumerable set. this is an uncountable infinity of numbers.
(or something like that. it is big, Big, BIG. see Cantor.)
((i'm not a mathematician. i just have a friend who, instead of "99 Bottles of beer on the wall" likes to sing "Aleph Null bottles of beer on the wall".))
dave
-- j. david farber oo architect+mentor numenor labs incorporated in sunny boulder colorado dfarber@numenor.com www.numenor.com
At 07:43 PM 27/04/98 -0300, David wrote:
You are, of course, right. I sometimes (quite often) jump before thinking. The nice thing though is that the argument stands even after the correction. I could even pretend it was a typo :)
Integer size => AlephNull
To be consistent with the #do: issue, Integer size should not be null. We
know
that we only deal with finite sets, we can take advantage of this knowledge, which is not just an implementation detail. It is true that SmallInteger does expose an implementation trick, but it is a "bad" class anyway and we should get rid of it.
AlephNull is not null. it is the number of elements in a non-recursively ennumerable set. this is an uncountable infinity of numbers.
(or something like that. it is big, Big, BIG. see Cantor.)
((i'm not a mathematician. i just have a friend who, instead of "99 Bottles of beer on the wall" likes to sing "Aleph Null bottles of beer on the
wall".))
dave
-- j. david farber oo architect+mentor numenor labs incorporated in sunny boulder colorado dfarber@numenor.com www.numenor.com
At 07:43 PM 27/04/98 -0300, David wrote:
Integer size => AlephNull
To be consistent with the #do: issue, Integer size should not be null.
AlephNull is not null. it is the number of elements in a non-recursively ennumerable set. this is an uncountable infinity of numbers.
(or something like that. it is big, Big, BIG. see Cantor.)
((i'm not a mathematician. i just have a friend who, instead of "99 Bottles of beer on the wall" likes to sing "Aleph Null bottles of beer on the
wall".))
My reply should have come here:
You are, of course, right. I sometimes (quite often) jump before thinking. The nice thing though is that the argument stands even after the correction. I could even pretend it was a typo :)
Florin
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org