3 ms·
> Yeah, that might work, but then it leads to an explosion of traits... Yes, there are a lot of common math functions, but why is that bad? The alternatives a
by civility 10y ago
> Yeah, that might work, but then it leads to an explosion of traits...
Yes, there are a lot of common math functions, but why is that bad? The alternatives are worse.
> The examples are cut and paste errors in a sense; as it says at the top of the page, [...]
I understand, sorry about that. I didn't see the comment at the top of the page, and I wasn't sure you knew.
- steveklabnik 10y agoMaybe, maybe not. Sounds like a good RFC :) Also, no worries about the bug! I much prefer over-reporting than under-reporting when it comes to these things.
- civility 10y ago> Maybe, maybe not. Sounds like a good RFC :) I'll think about it, but honestly, that sounds super unpleasant. I've seen the bike shedding that happens in those kinds of discussions, and I think it would be difficult to convince any decision makers that there is even a problem if they haven't stumbled upon it already. I don't think many of them do numerical computing, and the language and libraries already scratch their non-numerical itches.
- steveklabnik 10y agoThat's fair; I will say that numeric computing is an area we care about. Still working on some of the precursor stuff to make it great, though. There's a _lot_ of ways you can go in a general purpose programming language; I don't think it's something that "nobody has hit", they just use the workaround of making their own trait(s) and it hasn't been enough of a pain to try and spearhead a change.