Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:7255 comp.lang.c++:797
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!burl!codas!ateng!chip
From: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Power (Re: all those :-)
Message-ID: <187@ateng.UUCP>
Date: 11 Feb 88 18:19:04 GMT
References: <302@Aragorn.dde.uucp> <7139@brl-smoke.ARPA> <3461@ihlpf.ATT.COM> <3521@ihlpf.ATT.COM> <744@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> <132@ghostwheel.UUCP>
Reply-To: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c++
Organization: A T Engineering, Tampa, FL
Lines: 32

In article <132@ghostwheel.UUCP> ned@ghostwheel.aca.mcc.com.UUCP (Ned Nowotny) writes:
>In article <744@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> edw@IUS1.CS.CMU.EDU (Eddie Wyatt) writes:
>>Why not? why not have an extendable language, where the user is free to 
>>define his own infix operators?
>
>In some sense, C++ has this (mis-)feature -- operator and function overloading.
>
>Unfortunately, not all programmers seem to agree on what constitutes a good
>use of operator overloading.  I have seen code which overloaded "+" and "-"
>to add and remove, respectively, an object from a set of objects.
>
>do_something();
>A + B;
>do_something_else();
>
>That's right.  It looks like a useless expression, but its not.

And I have seen code where "read()" writes and "write()" reads.  So what?

The programmer should have defined "+=" instead of "+".  So fire the
programmer; don't hobble the other programmers by restricting their
power of expression.

>Of course, it can be argued that the misuse of a feature by a programmer is
>no excuse for blaming the feature.

I couldn't agree more.  :-|

-- 
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."