As it stands, the documentation doesn't say that `Mul` means commutative multiplication. Therefore it would be a mistake to write generic code that assumes that a type which implements `Mul` has commutative multiplication. Implementing `Mul` for two matrices would not be a mistake.
On 2014-06-17, at 14:34, SiegeLord <slab...@aim.com> wrote: > On 06/16/2014 06:17 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote: >> On Jun 16, 2014, at 3:03 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwar...@mozilla.com> wrote: >> I stated the right case, but the wrong reason. It’s not for vectorization, >> it’s because it’s not easy to reuse the storage of a matrix while >> multiplying into it. > > Overloading Mul for matrix multiplication would be a mistake, since that > operator does not act the same way multiplication acts for scalars. I.e. > you'd overload it, but passing two matrices into a generic function could do > very unexpected things if the code, e.g., relies on the operation being > commutative. Additionally, if your matrices contain the size in their type, > then some generic code wouldn't even accept them. Matrix scalar > multiplication is a better candidate for the Mul overload. > > -SL > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > Rust-dev@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
