Re: argument about encapsulating data sublanguage
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:43:44 GMT
Message-ID: <kmAmh.39769$cz.587440_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> A general solution: Have the operation as the axis and each operand as
> a spoke; all n operands are positioned at 360/n degree intervals:
>
> _a_
> b+c
> _d_
>
> To avoid any semblance of preference, letter fonts should be oriented
> outward and the picture ought to be rotating in an animated fashion
> with a randomized start position.
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:43:44 GMT
Message-ID: <kmAmh.39769$cz.587440_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
kvnkrkptrck_at_gmail.com wrote:
>>Gene Wirchenko wrote: >> >>>"Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Dec 28, 11:39 am, Gene Wirchenko <g..._at_ocis.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Consider that most OOPLs, such as Java, contain a mix of notations. >>>>>>Both the modern OO notation "x.f(y)" and the old-fashioned math >>>>>>notation "x + y" are supported. But why should we continue to >>>>>>use such a low-level way of doing things? >>>>> >>>>>OTOH, x.f(y) is typical hierarchical chauvinism oppressing y >>>>>merely because it is second. Have we not grown past that? Can we not >>>>>have relationships between equals: x+y? >>>> >>>>But in "x+y", the y still comes second! That's not equal! >>> >>> But remember commutivity! x+y to y+x is a valid transform. x.f(y) >>>to y.f(x) might not be. >>> >>>>You have reminded me of something the hollywood movies do >>>>when faced with two stars of the first magnitude, and the >>>>problem of how to give them equal credit. One gets the >>>>leftmost position, and one gets the topmost position. This >>>>will require a 2 dimensional syntax: >>>> >>>>+y >>>>x >>>> >>>>It works well, don't you think? >>> >>> For simple subexpressions, but something like >>> +(a*b) >>> (c*d) >>>no. Maybe, I should restate that as >>> + *b >>> a >>> *d >>> c >>>I will stop at this point, or someone will take this and start a new >>>fad of POET (Pictorially-Oriented Expression Tool). >> >>There is a limitation with this approach. What happens when three >>equally A-list stars show up in the same movie in comparably important >>roles? >> >>I think you have to add motion with the text scrolling in reverse order >>just to get to three. One appears first, one appears leftmost and one >>appears on top.
>
> A general solution: Have the operation as the axis and each operand as
> a spoke; all n operands are positioned at 360/n degree intervals:
>
> _a_
> b+c
> _d_
>
> To avoid any semblance of preference, letter fonts should be oriented
> outward and the picture ought to be rotating in an animated fashion
> with a randomized start position.
Hey! I think you solved the mystery of the credits for Family Affair!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059982/
> A more complex example:
>
> (ax+bx+cx+dx) * (dy + ey):
>
> __x_________y_
> __a_________e_
> xb+cx___*___+_
> __d_________d_
> __x_________y_
>
> For the full effect, try to picture this with all operands rotating
> independently....
No thank you. The "Tilt-a-Whirl" once made me hurl. Received on Tue Jan 02 2007 - 22:43:44 CET