From: timsuth@... (Tim Sutherland)
Date: 2005-04-29T17:49:30+09:00
Subject: Re: Performance question: Rational

In article <4hmce.70512$IN.1220555@twister2.libero.it>, gabriele renzi wrote:
>Richard Cole ha scritto:
>
>> It is kind of freaky to have definition of x/y change dependent on 
>> whether or not a library is included. One library changing the semantics 
>> of the operations defined in another library is side effects on steroids.
>
>yes, and we love that :)
>The point of using rational (or complex or mathn  or whatever) is that 
>you're slightly changing the language, so for general purpose you don't 
>need to support the whole world of chances but you can add them when you 
>really need them.
[...]

Problem is though, the original poster didn't do require 'rational'. They
just loaded a library that happened to use rational.

What if you want to use two libraries, one of which requires a/b to be
rational, and the other requires a/b to be integer division?

Selector namespaces are exciting :-)