On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 08:50:07PM -0500, Joe Gottman wrote: : Larry Wall wrote: : >Hmm, but then what corresponds to XX? I'd be more inclined to go : >the other way and say that you can transform any list infix form to : >the corresponding function form: : > : > @a ZZ @b ZZ @c -> zip operator : > ZZ(@a; @b; @c) -> zip function : > : > @a XX @b XX @c -> cross operator : > XX(@a; @b; @c) -> cross function : > : > @a X*X @b X*X @c -> cross product operator : > X*X(@a; @b; @c) -> cross product function : > : > @a MM @b MM @c -> minmax operator : > MM(@a; @b; @c) -> minmax function : > : > : > : > : But the X*X already has a meaning: * under the cross metaoperator. : Maybe you could use DD instead (for dot product).
Oh, sorry, I mean "cross product" in the literal cross-multiply sense, not in the mathematical sense of dot product. But yeah, this would also a way for mathematicians to add similar vector operators in a somewhat consistent naming style. 'Course, if they're going to go to that extreme they'll probably just use ⋅ or some such. Larry
