February 18, 2002 Re: infix functions as a substitute for operator overloading? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Pavel Minayev | Pavel Minayev wrote: > He said "user-defined", not "built-in". > For user-defined, I guess we can live with fixed precedence, > using braces where necessary... Right. I would say that any overloading of standard operators (with or without the :'s that have been suggested) should have the same precedence and left-to-right orientation as the original operators. But user-defined infix operators of this type should all have left-to-right orientation with relatively low precedence. -- The Villagers are Online! http://villagersonline.com .[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ] .[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ] ?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ] |
February 18, 2002 Re: infix functions as a substitute for operator overloading? | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Russ Lewis | "Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:3C70B980.E4FD2FA1@deming-os.org... > Pavel Minayev wrote: > > > He said "user-defined", not "built-in". > > For user-defined, I guess we can live with fixed precedence, > > using braces where necessary... > > Right. I would say that any overloading of standard operators (with or without the :'s that have been suggested) should have the same precedence and left-to-right orientation as the original operators. But user-defined infix operators of this type should all have left-to-right orientation with relatively low precedence. > > -- > The Villagers are Online! http://villagersonline.com > > .[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ] > .[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ] > ?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ] > > Oh I'm sorry, I understood wrong. I think user defined infix operations would be cool and I could live with fixed left to right precedence without a problem. I thought it was proposed as a substitution for overloading the standard operators, but I agree that you shouldn't mess with the precedence of + and *, or many people will be very confused and that can't be what we are aiming at with operator overloading. -- Stijn OddesE_XYZ@hotmail.com http://OddesE.cjb.net __________________________________________ Remove _XYZ from my address when replying by mail |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation