[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: generic * and 0
From: |
Kevin Ryde |
Subject: |
Re: generic * and 0 |
Date: |
Sat, 02 Dec 2006 08:52:13 +1100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) |
"Mikael Djurfeldt" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> If you want to use an operator which is common for numbers and <c>:s,
> why don't you want to use a common zero? If you don't, the behavior
> of the operator will be inconsistent.
For multiply by 0, I can sort of think of cases when the return type
shouldn't be a fixnum. If you're doing 0 times a certain size matrix,
then you probably want a matrix full of zeros to come back. Does that
sound right?
For multiply by 1, I can't actually think of any time you wouldn't
want to get back the object unchanged. But perhaps if a class has a
notion of multiply, but not "multiply by scalar" then you'd like it to
be overridable so it can be banned.
- Re: generic * and 0, Kevin Ryde, 2006/12/01
- Re: generic * and 0, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2006/12/01
- Re: generic * and 0,
Kevin Ryde <=
- Re: generic * and 0, Kevin Ryde, 2006/12/03
- Re: generic * and 0, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2006/12/04
- Re: generic * and 0, Kevin Ryde, 2006/12/04
- Re: generic * and 0, SZAVAI Gyula, 2006/12/05
- Re: generic * and 0, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2006/12/05
- Re: generic * and 0, Ludovic Courtès, 2006/12/05
- Re: generic * and 0, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2006/12/05
- Re: generic * and 0, Marius Vollmer, 2006/12/06
- Re: generic * and 0, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2006/12/07