The Crystal programming language | http://crystal-lang.org | Fund Crystal's development: http://is.gd/X7PRtI | Docs: http://crystal-lang.org/docs/ | API: http://crystal-lang.org/api/
nearly_equals? seems to be the desired behavior. I'll have to inspect it to see if it is semantically equivalent with what I need.
Thanks
hightower4: that's quite the macro you got there
expand
About the code in the above thread...they seem to overload
=~ for the language's Float type. I was hoping to not monkey patch the whole language, if that is what this is doing, and only introduce this overload when used in my specific module.
other option would be to use a decorator
Perhaps my concerns are nothing, but I am hesitant to do such a thing, if the library I am writing is to be used with third party code expecting different behavior for
=~ of 2 floats.
I don't know how the language behaves in this regard
Fair enough. Should I subclass the builtin float type and use that everywhere in my domain, or is there a more idiomatic approach?
Thanks
Do you mean defining an annotation?
struct FloatWrapper
@value : Float64
forward_missing_to @value
def initialize(@value : Float64); end
def special_method
end
end
Hmm, I don't really understand how that is delegating, but I'll study that code some. Thanks
Yeah that was my first stop. Just trying to figure out how this is different than inheritance. The docstring/example could be better imo
a hex string is just a string of hex characters
that's not what fresh vars are for
Is there a shorthand form for when you have the same type restriction for adjacent parameters, to make something like
(a : Float64, b : Float64, c : Float64, d : Float64) more concise?
# src/origin/common.cr
require "math"
module Origin
def foo(x, y, rel_tol, abs_tol)
(x - y).abs <= Math.max(abs_tol, rel_tol * Math.max(x.abs, y.abs))
end
end# src/origin.cr
require "./origin/*"
Origin.foo 1.2, 3.4, 1e-7, 1e-7 # Error: undefined method 'foo' for Origin:Moduleclass A
include Origin
end
A.new.foo
but you probably want to just define a class/module method by writing
def self.foo
Yes, I think I just want self.foo here