Sat Feb 8 23:53:30 CET 2003
Steven H. Rogers, PhD. wrote:
> Excellent idea. I like array oriented languages like APL/J/K for their
> overloading for arrays of arbitrary depth (actually lists of lists for
> K). Not to seem greedy, but if Erlang were to be extened to apply
> arithmetic operators to tuples, what about lists? Even better would be
> to handle any conformal data structures composed of lists and tuples.
Yes, Basic!! This would be real progress.
Seriously though this would mean that "ABCD" + 32 -> "abcd". If we are
going to do this we might as well go all the way and be consistent (I am
big beliver in consistency*) and always coerce arguments into
something which can be operated on. The results might be confusing.
Sorry for being a little sarcastic here but I think it is a very bad idea.
On a serious note though when Jonas Barklund and I were discussing BIFs,
replacing imports with synonyms and determining which function gets
called (Proposal 16) we came up with an idea that would solve this
problem very elegantly (even Richard O'K would approve). +-*/ etc would
be synonyms for number:'+'/2 etc (they are this today for erlang:'+'/2)
and thye could instead be made synonyms for say matrix_arith:'+'/2 etc.
This would allow using the operators, leave the originals alone and be
clean and explicit about what they call.
*At my age I value consistency, I haven't enough time to look up in a
manual every time I use something to see what arguments it can handle today.
More information about the erlang-questions