Re: Ramblings on "base class" for SV etc.

[Dan Sugalski]

At 09:11 AM 8/9/00 +0100, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
>Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >I've been considering adding all the 'basic' operations (simple math,
> >repetition, maybe comparisons) into the base vtable. That'd mean that,
> >while the core perl might have *no* idea what to do with:
> >
> >  @foo = @bar * 12;
> >
> >the slots would be there in case the clever PDL folks want to define it.
>
>I like it.
>
>The problem is (as with overloading) is deciding which
>operand's vtable gets to do the op and "who" is responsible for upgrading
>the "lesser" operand.

Yeah, there is that. Plus it means we need to decide on whether we force 
commutativity rules or not. IIRC some of the matrix math ops aren't using 
the same rules as plain math. (Though my R might not be C here--it's been a 
while)

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk