Michiel Helvensteijn wrote: > bearophile wrote: > >>> Indeed. The difficult question is, what would the syntax be? >> What about the simper: >> x.dot(y) > > I don't like symmetric operations with an asymmetric syntax. > > Better: dot(x, y) > Even better: dot_product(x, y) > Funner: sum(x .* y) >
Fine stuff. This reminds me of a discussion we had a year or more ago about offering abstract operators purely for the purpose of overloading. We can use things like (+), (*), (-), (&), and so on. It'd probably be fine to use one for dot product. Probably a dream though. It looks like it's very hard to get new tokens/syntax into the language at this point. I suppose annotations and exponentiation managed it, but with no shortage of blood, sweat, and tears.
