Discussion: new operators for numerical computation

[John Lull]

"Rainer Deyke" <root at rainerdeyke.com> wrote (with possible deletions):

> "John Lull" <lull at acm.org> wrote in message
> news:ueefns037mjarv63dqpbh52mmr1k6vvaop at 4ax.com...
> > This shouldn't be hard to parse.  In fact, it might be a reasonable
> > foundation for class-specific operators:
> >     A(.opName)B
> > would get executed as either
> >     A.__opName__(B)
> > or
> >     B.__ropName__(A)
> > or raise an exception as appropriate.
> 
> This would allow constructs such as:
> 
> A(.init)B
> 
> In other words, it would turn all existing __magic__ functions into
> operators.  Not a good idea IMO.


One could easily prevent that by having
    A(.opName)B
invoke
    A.___opName__(B)
instead of
    A.__opName__(B)
or some such.

Clearly there's nothing to force use of the same naming convention for
these operator methods.

Regards,
John