Re: generic * and 0

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

2006/12/1, Kevin Ryde <address@hidden>:
> SZAVAI Gyula <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > (use-modules (oop goops))
> > (define-class <c> ())
> > (define-method (* a (b <c>)) #t)
> > (* 0 (make <c>))
> > ==> 0
>
> Thanks, that's a bug.

Are you sure?

If you want to use an operator which is common for numbers and <c>:s,
why don't you want to use a common zero?  If you don't, the behavior
of the operator will be inconsistent.

If one still don't want 0 as zero (in the abstract sense), maybe one
should use another name for the operator, or, tie a different generic
to the name "*".

M