The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion Synopsis 9 draft 1

From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Subject:
 Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.

More options Sep 3 2004, 11:53 am
Newsgroups: perl.perl6.language
From: gregory.p.kee...@lmco.com (Gregory P. Keeney)
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 08:53:52 -0700
Local: Fri, Sep 3 2004 11:53 am
Subject: Re: Synopsis 9 draft 1

Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> Maybe it's just my BASIC upbringing, but "shape" doesn't seem like the

> right word.  Words like "dimension" and "cardinal" fit better in my
> head, but I'd want them shorter and "dim" and "card" don't quite work
> either ;-)

> But "shape" makes me want to do something like this:

>     my num @a is shape('triangle');
>     my num @b is shape('octagon');
>     my num @c is shape('square');

> That might make sense for triangles, but not the others (unless
> I'm just suffering a failure of imagination)

I think 'shape' fits better than 'cardinal' or 'dimension'; these things
have a 'dimension' that is distinct from their shape (e.g., C<my int @a
is shape(3;4;5);> has three dimensions). 'shape' implies the topology of
the array; though I can see how it would be easy to assume 'shape' means
'polygon'.

Think of it more like "the shape of ships, the shape of ships, the shape
of water when it drips" (_The Shape of Me and Other Things_ , Dr.
Suess). A teapot and a mobius strip both have very different shapes with
very different features, as do a sparse array and a quaternion.

Forgive me if I come across pedantic; I'm just trying to provide some
examples of thinking in terms of 'shape' as Perl 6 defines it.

Gregory Keeney

> Anyway ...my two cents.  If "shape" is carved in stone, I'll live with
> it :)

See, a stone has another shape! <grin>