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.
Also, no worries about the bug! I much prefer over-reporting than under-reporting when it comes to these things.
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.
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.
The examples are cut and paste errors in a sense; as it says at the top of the page, the examples are going to often use the wrong number type, because all that code is generated by macros, so for now all the number docs have to use the same type. It's a bug that needs to be fixed, but it's not a trivial one.