Hi, On Mon 27 Feb 2017 11:06, Alejandro Sanchez <hiph...@openmailbox.org> writes:
> (define v (make <vector3> #:x 1)) > > (* -1 v) ; Does not work > (* -2 v) ; Works fine I believe that Guile is doing strength reduction, transforming (* -1 v) to (- 0 v). It could be that this is totally the wrong thing. Is (* x 2) -> (+ x x) a valid transformation if you don't know the type of x? I don't know. I think there's currently an assumption that if you extend *, that you will do so in a mathy way, and that you implement - + and similar. But in this case it's not the clear right thing to do. WDYT? We could remove this transformation, or only apply it when type inference has run. Andy
