Arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (19 Aug 2020 11:45 UTC)
Re: Arguments Arvydas Silanskas (19 Aug 2020 12:19 UTC)
Re: Arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (19 Aug 2020 12:38 UTC)
Re: Arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (19 Aug 2020 13:05 UTC)
Re: Arguments John Cowan (19 Aug 2020 23:27 UTC)
Re: Arguments Linas Vepstas (20 Aug 2020 04:04 UTC)
Re: Arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (20 Aug 2020 05:29 UTC)
Re: Arguments Arvydas Silanskas (20 Aug 2020 08:55 UTC)
Re: Arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (20 Aug 2020 09:15 UTC)
Re: Arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (20 Aug 2020 09:16 UTC)
Re: Arguments John Cowan (20 Aug 2020 14:15 UTC)
Re: Arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (20 Aug 2020 14:18 UTC)
Re: Arguments John Cowan (20 Aug 2020 14:21 UTC)
Re: Arguments Arvydas Silanskas (22 Aug 2020 00:13 UTC)
Re: Arguments Arthur A. Gleckler (22 Aug 2020 05:17 UTC)
Re: Arguments John Cowan (22 Aug 2020 16:31 UTC)
Re: Arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (22 Aug 2020 16:36 UTC)

Re: Arguments Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen 20 Aug 2020 14:18 UTC

Am Do., 20. Aug. 2020 um 16:15 Uhr schrieb John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>:

> This all sounds excellent.  I'm making the origin optional as well: if there is an odd number of arguments, origin is the first one, but if there is an even number, then origin is 0.  So the procedure can be called with 2, 3, 4, or 5 arguments: magnitude bounds, origin plus magnitude bounds, magnitude and angle bounds, and origin plus angle and magnitude bounds respectively.
>
> I'm dropping the word "complex" in the procedure names, though with some reluctance: in this case I think reduction in size beats greater clarity.
>
> In accordance with this, I am reordering the args of the rectangular generator by swapping the second and third arguments, so that in all cases a lower bound comes immediately before the corresponding upper bound.

Looks perfect to me! Thanks!

-- Marc