I don't think it's necessary to go that far either, otherwise the number of user-defined operators will probably be close to 0 (I don't know the state of affairs in Eiffel though).
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:10 PM, J. Ian Johnson <i...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > Isn't it true that Eiffel does compiler transforms given that a user has > "proven" their operators associative/commutative, etc? > -Ian > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Laurent" <laurent.ors...@gmail.com> > To: "Matthias Felleisen" <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> > Cc: dev@racket-lang.org > Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2013 1:28:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Racket2 suggestion: Attaching properties to > operators > > > > ...or keywords that would simplify my search. Don't take too much time > digging old references that will not be much more than informative to me. > > > > > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Laurent < laurent.ors...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > Would you happen to have a reference on that? > > > > > > > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Matthias Felleisen < matth...@ccs.neu.edu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 5, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Laurent wrote: > > > Do you know why C++ has stopped pursuing this idea by any chance? > > No, and they may have more work going on besides standard work. > It's worth reading up on it if you're interested. > > > > > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
