However, to be honest, I don't need much of the string functions. I only need functions that operate vectors or matrices.
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:34 PM, yi lu <zhiwudazhanjiang...@gmail.com> wrote: > When you talk about convention, you regard julia language as a programming > language like MATLAB or a more general purpose language? Again, it is all > about string concatenation, not operations on a ring. > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 11:13 PM, John Myles White < > johnmyleswh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That is true, but the convention exists nonetheless. Consider, for >> example, this branch of the combinatorics literature: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-free_word >> >> -- John >> >> >> On Jul 3, 2014, at 8:09 AM, yi lu <zhiwudazhanjiang...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I know abstract algebra. When talking about string concatenation, a >> monoid <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoid> is enough. It is true that >> in a ring, "+" is a commutative operator, and "*" no commutative required, >> however, a ring is far beyond what needed to do a string concatenation job. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:59 PM, John Myles White < >> johnmyleswh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> This is just the standard convention in mathematics. See just about any >>> textbook on abstract algebra for a discussion of the reasons. >>> >>> I think it's safe to say that `+` will never be string concatenation, so >>> it's better to focus energy on other proposals. >>> >>> -- John >>> >>> On Jul 3, 2014, at 7:57 AM, yi lu <zhiwudazhanjiang...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> @John I know that "*" means no commutative, but I see no reason "+" has >>> a meaning of commutative. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:53 PM, Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> That's even worse. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:52 AM, yi lu <zhiwudazhanjiang...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I will vote for "+", although I learn mathematics. Maybe that is why I >>>>> am not a mathematician. >>>>> >>>>> Yi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Stefan Karpinski < >>>>> ste...@karpinski.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Ivar Nesje <iva...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> We should really create a simple system where you can get those >>>>>>> hints printed in the REPL, without defining more methods. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I think we should really pursue this avenue. >>>>>> >>>>>> For what it's worth - and perhaps something since I'm the original >>>>>> perpetrator of the str*str concatenation syntax - I've come to regret >>>>>> this >>>>>> operator choice. My reasoning at this point is that we want our operators >>>>>> to have fairly "pure" meanings. I chose str*str because concatenation can >>>>>> be viewed as a kind of multiplication in the ring of string patterns >>>>>> (alternation in the regex sense is the addition operation, the empty >>>>>> string >>>>>> is the unit and the non-matching pattern is the zero). However, many >>>>>> operations can be viewed as a form of multiplication. In the max-plus >>>>>> algebra <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max-plus_algebra>, for >>>>>> example, addition is the multiplication operator. So, at this point I >>>>>> think >>>>>> we should stick to very pure classical meanings for operators in Base - >>>>>> the >>>>>> Base.* function should be just addition of numbers in the classical >>>>>> sense, >>>>>> not the broader sense of addition in any conceivable ring. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >
