[Scilab-users] Confusion about types (typeof vs. Variabe Browser)

[Samuel Gougeon]

Le 29/11/2019 à 06:57, Federico Miyara a écrit :
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'm trying to elucidate some details regarding types. The most basic 
> type, corresponding to real or complex decimal numbers (or vectors, 
> matrices and hypermatrices with this kind of components) is called 
> "constant" by the function typeof (and so listed in the documentation).
>
> However, the variable browser lists them as "double".


Both are sucking legacy (i hope there is no copyright on this 
expression). But if we should sort awful things, a variable of 
"constant" is clearly the worst, in my not humble opinion.

"double" is awful as well because personally, as a user in 2019, i 
strictly don't care about that, 40 years ago, there was a dominating 
"single precision" encoding, and then came the "double precision" 
encoding, and everybody was really happy, you know. Still today, we 
should remember this great event. OK, OK, OK. We are still very happy, 
indeed.
In Scilab, there is no single precision encoding. May be we should 
propose implementing it, to look like our so loved eternal and discrete 
and exclusive inspirator.

For any normal newby, before being twisted-minded by historical and 
external habits, a "double" is a number, or even better, for interfaces 
where short and explicit keywords are welcome, a num.ber

And for the same fresh user, what does a string mean? A rope, a chain.
Now, when comprehensive normal -- so very creative -- persons ask why we 
don't name a byte a string of bits, you know which answer they receive? 
None. Very strange world, isn't it? Very.
Yet, "Text" is a word even shorter than "String". It tells exactly what 
this stuff is actually.
In Scilab, a text is NOT a characters string: the basic block is the 
text, not the character. And part() helps.
But anyway, which user really cares about how texts are encoded? Is it 
really the matter?

>
> This is somewhat confusing. 


Oo yes. Sometimes we pay to get confused. With Scilab, it's free. Get, 
try, and love it. Or report.

> It seems that "double" refers to the way each individual component is 
> encoded while constant may refer to the fact that any array containing 
> doubles is o type constant.
>
> In the case of integers, for instance we have int64 as reported by 
> typeof, but in the Variable Browser it is listed a bit more in full as 
> "Integer 64". While this is also slightly inconsistent, it is not to 
> complain very much about.
>
> In the case of rationals, typeof returns "rational" while the Variable 
> Browser callsit "r (Tlist)"
>
> Cell array type is called "ce" by typeof but "Cell" in the Variabe Browser
>
> User-defined types in tlists and mlists are designed by the 
> user-defined type name by typeof, while the variable browser adds 
> "(Tlist)" or "(Mlist)"
>
> Functions, libraries and impliit lists such as $ are not listed in the 
> variable bowser but are correctly reported by typeof


We can add them in the list, through the /Filter/ menu.

Anyway, beside the "constant" typeof, i personally do not care too much 
about technical typeof names.
Obviously, it is always highly preferable to choose carefully reserved 
keywords when creating them.
Some typeof improvements have been done for Scilab 6. And indeed we 
could wonder why this "constant" typeof has not been changed.
Too frequently used in existing codes? Probably.

But the situation in GUIs is quite different. Back-compatibility issues 
are somewhat less acute than in the code.
In the variables browser and editor,

  * an array of decimal real numbers could be tagged "num.ber"
  * an array of complex numbers : "complex", despite it is the same
    "constant" typeof. It's not the topic.
  * a sparse array of complex numbers : "sparse complex"
  * an array of characters string : "text"
  * an array of int64 integers : "int64". It is definitely clear, and
    shorter than "Integer 64" or "64 bits integers", that tell nothing
    more or better than "int64"
  * an array of rationals: "rational", indeed.
  * etc

I do not see reasons to make GUIs labels exactly matching the technical 
typeofs.
But, please convince us.

Cheers
Samuel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scilab.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20191205/2f98e994/attachment.htm>