14 May
2020
14 May
'20
10:40 a.m.
On Wed, May 13, 2020, 10:22 PM Greg A. Woods <woods(a)robohack.ca> wrote:
At Thu, 14 May 2020 09:36:57 +1000 (EST), Dave
Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org>
wrote:
Subject: Re: [TUHS] v7 K&R C
Queue rant about << and >> overloading...
Warner
--
On Tue, 12 May 2020, Paul Winalski wrote:
Well in the true OO world the ability to "overload" a message (aka what
is sometimes effectively an operator) allows a wise designer to apply
the traditional meaning of that message (operator) to a new kind of
object. Attempts to change the meaning of a message (operator) when
applied to already well known objects is forbidden by good taste and
sane reviewers.
C++ being a bit of a dog's breakfast seems to have given some people the
idea that they can get away with abusing operator overloading for what
can only amount to obfuscation.
o operator overloading
[...]
I never could figure out why Stroustrup implemented that "feature";
let's see, this operator usually means this, except when you use it in
that situation in which case it means something else. Now, try
debugging that. Greg A. Woods
<gwoods(a)acm.org>
Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <woods(a)robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods(a)planix.com> Avoncote Farms <woods(a)avoncote.ca>