On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 12:14:47 +0200, Spacen Jasset
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why unicode anyway? In the same way that editor support is required to
actually type them in, why not let the editor render them. So instead of
symbol 'x' in the source code, say:
m3 = m1 cross_product m2
as an infix notatation in a similar way to the (uniary) sizeof operator.
While cross_product is a bit long and unwieldy any editor capable can
replace the rendition of that keyword with a symbol for it. But in
editors that don't it means that it still can be typed in and/or
displayed easily.
Another option includes providing cross_product as an 'alias' and 'X'
aswell.
Which then leads on to the introduction of a facility to add arbitary
operators, which could be interesting becuase you can supply any
operator you see fit for the domains that you use that require it. --
This provide exactly the right solution though as all the additions
would be 'non standard' and I can see books in the future recommending
people not use unicode operators, becuase editors don't have support for
them.
This made me think. What if we /could/ define arbitrary infix operators in
D? I'm thinking something along the lines of:
operator cross_product(T, U)
{
static if (T.opCross)
{
T.opCross(T)
}
else static if (U.opCross)
{
U.opCross_r(T);
}
else
{
static assert(false, "Operator not applicable to operands.");
}
}
alias cross_product ×;
I'm not sure if this is possible, but it sure would please downs. :P
--
Simen
