Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!sci.kun.nl!wn3.sci.kun.nl!ge From: ge@wn3.sci.kun.nl (Ge' Weijers) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: A treatise on overloading quasi-operators Message-ID: <2230@wn1.sci.kun.nl> Date: 25 Sep 90 15:47:46 GMT References: <8445@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> <57570@microsoft.UUCP> Sender: root@sci.kun.nl Lines: 35 pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: >[An awful lot about overloading * . and -> deleted] >If you have followed me down to this line (only a few more to go :->), >and all this has made you think that consistency and orthogonality, >simplicity and completeness, etc... are important, you win your honorary >membership of the Algol 68 Revised Report lover's club, and you are >disqualified from membership in any language standardization committee >set up by a certain USA organization related to a popular character >code, or any standardization committee related to CCITT :-). And what about passing operators as parameters? Even Algol68 disallowed that. What about PROC add = (OP * (INT, INT)INT, INT a, b)INT: a * b; # let's confuse the reader # print(add(+,4,4)); Think of the unknown possibilities of passing -> as a parameter. It gives me a headache, especially when combined with parameterised types and polymorphism (((INT n)VOID:print((" :-)" * n, newline)))(10)) (Is C++ going in the kitchen-sink language direction?) Ge' Weijers -- Ge' Weijers Internet/UUCP: ge@cs.kun.nl Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge) University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1 6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands tel. +3180652483 (UTC-2)