Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!think!redsox!campbell
From: campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Improved switch statement
Message-ID: <581@redsox.UUCP>
Date: 24 Dec 88 03:43:16 GMT
References: <6590072@hplsla.HP.COM> <1106@etive.ed.ac.uk> <33528@bbn.COM> <1907@ogccse.ogc.edu> <574@redsox.UUCP> <9245@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <781@auspex.UUCP> <9264@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Lines: 28

In article <9264@ihlpb.ATT.COM> nevin1@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Liber,N.J.) writes:
}In article <781@auspex.UUCP> guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) writes:
}
}>Well, offhand I'd think a program defining "==" operator that didn't act
}>like an equality operator would be a good candidate for an "Obfuscated
}>C++ Code" contest; I'd *strongly* suggest they pick some other operator.
}
}But part of the beauty of C++ is that you don't have to define
}operator== as the *C* equality operator!

... followed by an example of a non-commutative == operator ...

It is an EXTREMELY bad engineering practice to use deceptive or misleading
names in programs.  Well-written programs inform and educate the reader --
they do not surprise or deceive him.

Remember, operators are just function names.  It is possible, but foolish,
to define a function called "sqrt" that returns, say, the cube root of its
argument.  It is also possible, but equally foolish, to define an "=="
operator that does something radically different than what most people
expect from an equality operator (like not being commutative, not returning
a boolean value, etc.)

Just because C++ lets you do it doesn't mean it's a good idea!
-- 
Larry Campbell                          The Boston Software Works, Inc.
campbell@bsw.com                        120 Fulton Street
wjh12!redsox!campbell                   Boston, MA 02146