3 ms·
This feels like a legitimate critique to me. I'm developing a programming language myself and I'm not going to include a syntax like this--multiplying an array
by kerkeslager 3y ago
This feels like a legitimate critique to me. I'm developing a programming language myself and I'm not going to include a syntax like this--multiplying an array by a number feels like a type error to me.
- aeonik 3y agoI wouldn't recommend just throwing the idea away, it just needs to be approached with care. You can do it in a type safe way. Research Rank Polymorphism and Array Languages: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Array_programming https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Array_programming https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00509 https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00509
- kerkeslager 3y agoI mean, is there anything there that couldn't just be a library function? Not everything has to be an operator.
- aeonik 3y agoPhilosophically, I don't know what "must" or "has" to be an operator. I certainly don't want to tell you how to design your language. I'm just trying to say, don't rule the pattern out because it's perceived as a type error; you may have other reasons that are good, but my citations provide a basis of how to make the typing work (if you were inclined). If you have other reasons, even if it's just aesthetic, that's fine.
- hughesjj 3y agoTotally agreed @ just not implementing this part. I think the motivation was being able to do scalar multiplication with a vector, but it gets ugly when operating on anything but numbers imo