Yeah I was really surprised by it as recently I was playing kotlinlang #announcements

Yeah I was really surprised by it as recently I wa...

Jakub Gwóźdź

10/12/2018, 2:34 PM

Yeah I was really surprised by it as recently I was playing with some maths and had this

data class Complex(val re: Double, val im: Double)

nice class and a few operators on it and I was so happy that I can do all this

z = z * z + c

thingies, wow Kotlin is so great. Then I was sooooo happy when I figured out I can add

val Double.i get() = Complex(0.0, this)

and simply have

val z = 3.5.i

And then, just after that, I saw the "Puzzlers" talk. And tried

-3.5.i

. Oh boy...

elizarov

10/12/2018, 2:35 PM

But what is the problem with that in your case? Just define

unaryMinus

operator on your complex number and it’ll work just as it is supposed to work.

Jakub Gwóźdź

10/12/2018, 2:36 PM

of course.

Jakub Gwóźdź

10/12/2018, 2:36 PM

it was just a surprise

Jakub Gwóźdź

10/12/2018, 2:37 PM

it works in my Complex class, wouldn't in the "toSting().length` case

elizarov

10/12/2018, 2:38 PM

It would had been really strange if the behavior of this code depended on the spae between

and

3.5

(in maths it does not usually matter if you have a space or not)

elizarov

10/12/2018, 2:40 PM

And tweaking priority is also inconsistent with math. Consider

-a.x-b.x-c.x

. Obviously, all

.x

shall execute before

operators (that is how it usually works in math)

Jakub Gwóźdź

10/12/2018, 2:42 PM

agree. I would only limit it to literals, but I get your point.