That's even worse.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM, yi lu <zhiwudazhanjiang...@gmail.com> wrote: > I will vote for "+", although I learn mathematics. Maybe that is why I am > not a mathematician. > > Yi > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Ivar Nesje <iva...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> We should really create a simple system where you can get those hints >>> printed in the REPL, without defining more methods. >> >> >> Yes, I think we should really pursue this avenue. >> >> For what it's worth – and perhaps something since I'm the original >> perpetrator of the str*str concatenation syntax – I've come to regret this >> operator choice. My reasoning at this point is that we want our operators >> to have fairly "pure" meanings. I chose str*str because concatenation can >> be viewed as a kind of multiplication in the ring of string patterns >> (alternation in the regex sense is the addition operation, the empty string >> is the unit and the non-matching pattern is the zero). However, many >> operations can be viewed as a form of multiplication. In the max-plus >> algebra <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max-plus_algebra>, for example, >> addition is the multiplication operator. So, at this point I think we >> should stick to very pure classical meanings for operators in Base – the >> Base.* function should be just addition of numbers in the classical sense, >> not the broader sense of addition in any conceivable ring. >> >> >
