krtisfranks wrote:
> Presumably, this operator is overloaded, right? For example, it is
typical
> integer multiplication for integers, scalar multiplication for vectors,
> and pointwise multiplication for functions; correct? (Modulo
> context/definitions)


And should matrix multiplication (of vectors or matrices as standard ly
described) be considered "pi'i"?

In any case, I think that we should have an entry-wise/componentwise
operator (de)convertion; that is, one which distributes an operator to each
term in a tuple (or which can go layers deeper) if valid. This idea is
rather like the dot operators in MatLab, "@@" in Mathematica, and relates
to vectorization.

Comment #3: Re: Overloaded

gleki (Tue Nov 10 06:25:31 2015)

krtisfranks wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > Presumably, this operator is overloaded, right? For example, it is > typical > > integer multiplication for integers, scalar multiplication for vectors, > > and pointwise multiplication for functions; correct? (Modulo > > context/definitions) > > > And should matrix multiplication (of vectors or matrices as standard ly > described) be considered "pi'i"? > > In any case, I think that we should have an entry-wise/componentwise > operator (de)convertion; that is, one which distributes an operator to each > term in a tuple (or which can go layers deeper) if valid. This idea is > rather like the dot operators in MatLab, "@@" in Mathematica, and relates > to vectorization. It's a good idea to map words to less polysemous operators like in MatLab. P.S. I wish you created more brivla rather than cmavo connectives.

Comment #4: Re: Overloaded Curtis W Franks (Thu Nov 12 22:14:38 2015) gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > Presumably, this operator is overloaded, right? For example, it is > > typical > > > integer multiplication for integers, scalar multiplication for vectors, > > > and pointwise multiplication for functions; correct? (Modulo > > > context/definitions) > > > > > > And should matrix multiplication (of vectors or matrices as standard ly > > described) be considered "pi'i"? > > > > In any case, I think that we should have an entry-wise/componentwise > > operator (de)convertion; that is, one which distributes an operator to > each > > term in a tuple (or which can go layers deeper) if valid. This idea is > > rather like the dot operators in MatLab, "@@" in Mathematica, and relates > > > to vectorization. > > > It's a good idea to map words to less polysemous operators like in MatLab. > > P.S. I wish you created more brivla rather than cmavo connectives. I agree. Re: P.S. Unfortunately, that is not really how the language works; mekso operators almost surely should be cmavo. There are a few cases for brivla being useful (such as with .aigne), but those ideas are not really operators. :/