Chad J: > 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.
This looks acceptable as dot product: x (*) y but to me it doesn't look that much better than the simple: x.dot(y) Bye, bearophile
