2009/1/24 Olex P <[email protected]> > But you know it doesn't make too much sense because I also have to define > addition Scalar + Vector (that means construct vector from scalar and add a > vector), Vector + Scalar and so on. And as we are not able to overload > operations in C++ like way we have to create several different operations > even if their meaning is pretty close.
Well, yeah, but their meaning isn't *the same*, so we don't give them the same name. For vectors, putting a carat (or other signifier like a dot) on the side of the operation which has the vector is relatively common practice. Scalar +^ Vector Vector ^+^ Vector And so on. And also, I wonder, what are you going and adding scalars to vectors for!? (I've heard of multiplying scalars by vectors -- that's in the definition of a vector space, but adding...?) Oh, instead of overloading a million operations that just work component-wise on vectors the way C++ guys do it, you can just define a higher-order function: vmap :: (Vector v) => (Double -> Double) -> v -> v Or however it works out in your situation. Then you can reserve those precious symbols for things that are actually vectory, like inner products. Luke
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
