I'll think about it, but honestly, that sounds super unpleasant. I've seen the bike shedding that happens in those kinds of discussions, and I think it would be difficult to convince any decision makers that there is even a problem if they haven't stumbled upon it already. I don't think many of them do numerical computing, and the language and libraries already scratch their non-numerical itches.
That's fair; I will say that numeric computing is an area we care about. Still working on some of the precursor stuff to make it great, though.
There's a _lot_ of ways you can go in a general purpose programming language; I don't think it's something that "nobody has hit", they just use the workaround of making their own trait(s) and it hasn't been enough of a pain to try and spearhead a change.
Yes, there are a lot of common math functions, but why is that bad? The alternatives are worse.
> The examples are cut and paste errors in a sense; as it says at the top of the page, [...]
I understand, sorry about that. I didn't see the comment at the top of the page, and I wasn't sure you knew.