Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!lll-lcc!lll-winken!uunet!steinmetz!ge-dab!codas!ateng!chip
From: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Operator overloading considered harmful
Message-ID: <152@ateng.UUCP>
Date: 18 Jan 88 14:51:40 GMT
References: <240@vsi1.UUCP> <4538@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <281@bernina.UUCP>
Reply-To: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg)
Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL
Lines: 21

In article <281@bernina.UUCP> marti@ethz.UUCP (Robert Marti) writes:
>Personally, I think the (more restricted) form of overloading you get
>by subclassing and inheritance is all you really need.  The argument
>for operator overloading -- namely that it is nice to use an operator
>such as + for adding complex numbers, vectors, etc -- is just not
>good enough for me.  After all, this is just syntactic sugaring!

Let us _not_ fall into the language wars again!  No feature of C++ which is
not present in C is "needed" in the sense of being indispensible.
Otherwise, C would be useless, and we all know that it isn't. :-)

Operator overloading is not necessary.  Neither are classes nor function
overloading nor inline functions.  They are nice and they are useful, when
used properly.

C++ is an industrial-strength language.  What some people seem to forget
is that industrial-strength means "not safe for pets and small children."

-- 
Chip Salzenberg                 UUCP: "{codas,uunet}!ateng!chip"
A T Engineering                 My employer's opinions are a trade secret.
    "Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't."  -- me