On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 17:03:05 -0500, so <[email protected]> wrote:
?? The only type in this list without a division operator is vector
all the others have it.
Matrix matrix, matrix vector, vector matrix division also not defined,
there is one syntactic similarity but it is not division.
Didn't give much of a thought to others since vector, matrix and scalar
operations takes already quite a bit space.
I'm sorry? What do you call the "generic case" here? All this list
shows is that each operator needs to be implemented individually
anyway. Andrei's point was exactly the reverse: he claims that most
operators can be implemented in groups which clearly isn't the case
I don't agree, majority of the cases you duplicate almost all of the
code and just change the operator. That was the thing i meant with
"generic case".
If i wasn't clear, say:
vector opBinary(string op)(scalar s) if(op == "+" || op == "-" ....) {
static if(op == "/")
return general("*")(1/s); // particular case
else
return general(op)(s); // general case, just a one-liner mixin
}
vector opBinary(string op)(vector v) if(op == "+" || op == "-" ....) {
return general(op)(v); // again, just a one-liner mixin
}
Same goes for matrix, particular case being the multiplication.
Actually, that doesn't work currently. But I think this is a situation
that can be fixed.
Essentially, you can't overload templates. You have to do something like
this instead:
vector opBinary(string op, T)(T s) if(is(T == scalar) && (op == "+" || op
== "-" ....)) {
static if(op == "/")
return general("*")(1/s); // particular case
else
return general(op)(s); // general case, just a one-liner mixin
}
vector opBinary(string op, T)(T v) if(is(T == vector) && (op == "+" || op
== "-" ....)) {
return general(op)(v); // again, just a one-liner mixin
}
So, it makes things difficult in this regard too, but I really hope this
can be solved. It's already been stated in TDPL that templates will be
able to overload with non-templates. I think this means they should
overload with templates also.
Note that these solutions may look simple and easy to you, but they look
convoluted and messy to me ;)
-Steve
