Newsgroups:   comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv1!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!torsqnt!jtsv16!itcyyz!yrloc!intern
From:         dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.COM (Gillett, David)
Subject:      Re:  Numeric/character conversion primitives
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.191528.15835@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM>
Sender: intern@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Intern via QUADRAM)
Reply-To:     dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.COM (Gillett, David)
Organization: Reuters Information Services (Canada)
Date:         19 Feb 92 19:00:06 UT


-----------Message forwarded from IPSA Mailbox-------------


no. 5985385 filed 18.20.11  wed 19 feb 1992
from dgil
to   uclapl
subj Re:  Numeric/character conversion primitives
ref  5985020

     I hope Bob Bernecky didn't get the impression that I was opposed to
conversion primitives.  I'm not.

     I AM opposed to two specific ideas, which I maintain are misfeatures of
the languages which have adopted them:
       1.  Sacrificing consistency/intuitiveness/flexibility/robustness on the
           altar of the great god Efficiency.  [Bob implies that primitives of
           desirable consistency etc. can be made adequately efficient, and I
           agree.]
       2.  Binding the conversions into I/O primitives -- with perhaps a single
           exception.  You should not need to do I/O in order to perform
           conversion, nor vice-versa.  [The exception applies to output only,
           where it makes sense for the default display primitive to convert
           all objects to 'displayable' form.]

--
"Humans are the only species that  |  Dave Gillett
worries about finding some unique  |  dgil@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.com
distinction for their species."    |  OR dgil@pa.reuter.com


-----------------------------------------------------------
This posting is forwarded from an internal Reuters mailbox.
No statement or opinion contained herein should be taken as
being Reuters policy, or even as being approved by Reuters,
in any way.
