Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cmcl2!stealth.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Personal dialects and C++ overloading
Message-ID: <926.18:17:58@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 8 Feb 90 00:17:59 GMT
References: <5940014@hpcupt1.HP.COM> <Jan.24.10.40.15.1990.15842@police.rutgers.edu> <33889@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1922@gmdzi.UUCP> < <1990Jan29.210357.366@eng.umd.edu> <90029.194640JI8@PSUVM.BITNET> <4152@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Reply-To: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Distribution: usa
Organization: IR
Lines: 14

In article <4152@helios.TAMU.EDU> john@stat.tamu.edu (John S. Price) writes:
> No, no, no.  Operator overloading in C++ is used to abstract what
> the '+' operator does to a user-defined class.

This Ada (and, by imitation, Fortran 90 and C++) misfeature makes
program maintenance a nightmare. The problem isn't just that it's a pain
to locate the routine that adds a GLORP to a FOOBIEBLETCH. The problem
is that you won't even notice the nonstandard usage until it's too late.

Overloading saves typing time. It has no other advantages. (Is it an
advantage to be able to code without thinking and make undetectable
syntax errors?)

---Dan