Dear Robert,
Hmmm. Quite an interesting discussion. Could anyone try to make some
sort of synthesis of the different opinions expressed in this thread?
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:18:45PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> As mentioned, everything can be seen as a Z-module. This would mean
> that every time I implement _mul_ I would have to handle this case.
> It's much simpler to let _mul_ only worry about the ring (or group,
> or field...) multiplication. One can define _rmul_, _lmul_, ... for
> actions.
+10
Just 2 cents:
- I would reserve _lmul_, _rmul_ ... for actions which can be
considered as some sort of multiplication by scalars, and using
another name like the one you suggested for other actions
- I see 10*bla as (potentially) involving two independent things:
coercion and multiple dispatch
For whatever it's worth, I had started writing a draft of paper on the
coercion (= implicit conversion) and multiple dispatch mechanism I had
implemented in MuPAD:
http://mupad-combinat.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mupad-combinat/trunk/MuPAD-Combinat/Papers/2007-12-13-Overloading.tex?view=markup
Strangely enough, I lost part of my motivation for working on this
shortly after :-)
Cheers,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
