[racket-dev] Racket2 suggestion: Attaching properties to operators

I don't think it's necessary to go that far either, otherwise the number of
user-defined operators will probably be close to 0 (I don't know the state
of affairs in Eiffel though).


On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 9:10 PM, J. Ian Johnson <ianj at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:

> Isn't it true that Eiffel does compiler transforms given that a user has
> "proven" their operators associative/commutative, etc?
> -Ian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Laurent" <laurent.orseau at gmail.com>
> To: "Matthias Felleisen" <matthias at ccs.neu.edu>
> Cc: dev at racket-lang.org
> Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2013 1:28:59 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [racket-dev] Racket2 suggestion: Attaching properties to
> operators
>
>
>
> ...or keywords that would simplify my search. Don't take too much time
> digging old references that will not be much more than informative to me.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Laurent < laurent.orseau at gmail.com >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Would you happen to have a reference on that?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Matthias Felleisen < matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 5, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Laurent wrote:
>
>
> Do you know why C++ has stopped pursuing this idea by any chance?
>
> No, and they may have more work going on besides standard work.
> It's worth reading up on it if you're interested.
>
>
>
>
> _________________________
>   Racket Developers list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20130506/b184d8d3/attachment.html>