I would like to propose a possibility to
over(?)load operators "!","#","?","$" (both - unary and binary)
Thanx
Yan

To do what?

Please provide examples of what you intend, so we can give you opinions

"Yan" <Yan_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c0695d$2b15$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I would like to propose a possibility to
> over(?)load operators "!","#","?","$" (both - unary and binary)
> Thanx
> Yan
>
>

>I would like to propose a possibility to
>over(?)load operators "!","#","?","$" (both - unary and binary)

Hey, that's unfair! Why $ but not €?

and what about £ ?

and then we have °, and § and ¬ and ¦ and ¢ and ¨ ?

:D

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c07skh$1uhc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >I would like to propose a possibility to
> >over(?)load operators "!","#","?","$" (both - unary and binary)
>
> Hey, that's unfair! Why $ but not €?
>
>

for more amusement along these lines check out http://www.research.att.com/~bs/whitespace98.pdf

"davepermen" <davepermen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c07srf$1uut$1@digitaldaemon.com...
| and what about £ ?
|
| and then we have °, and § and ¬ and ¦ and ¢ and ¨ ?
|
| :D
|
| "Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| news:c07skh$1uhc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
| > >I would like to propose a possibility to
| > >over(?)load operators "!","#","?","$" (both - unary and binary)
| >
| > Hey, that's unfair! Why $ but not ??
| >
| >
|
|

i know that yet.. what about the one with the \\ comments? :D

here is the comment \\ x = 10;

:D

"Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle4@juno.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:c0846h$2b01$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> for more amusement along these lines check out http://www.research.att.com/~bs/whitespace98.pdf
>
> "davepermen" <davepermen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c07srf$1uut$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> | and what about £ ?
> |
> | and then we have °, and § and ¬ and ¦ and ¢ and ¨ ?
> |
> | :D
> |
> | "Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member@pathlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> | news:c07skh$1uhc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> | > >I would like to propose a possibility to
> | > >over(?)load operators "!","#","?","$" (both - unary and binary)
> | >
> | > Hey, that's unfair! Why $ but not ??
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

If we have more complicated objects than ints and reals and bools
(for example - vectors, armies, rockets, planets...), then we would have more
possible operations on them. Some of such operations will be used
frequently. Remember scalar and cross products of vectors.
You could overload "*" operator to get scalar product.
Why not to overload "@" operator in order to get cross product?
Or i must use "%" or "~" only?

We find in specification
"Since ++e is defined to be semantically equivalent to (e += 1), the
expression ++e is rewritten as (e += 1), and then checking for operator
overloading is done. The situation is analogous for --e".
But who says that e is such an object that operation ++ is comutative?

Example:

Army a1 = new Army();
a1++; // to add 1 soldier on the right flank
++a1; // to add 1 soldier on the left flank










In article <c06f1p$2kkr$2@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...
>
>To do what?
>
>Please provide examples of what you intend, so we can give you opinions
>
>"Yan" <Yan_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:c0695d$2b15$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> I would like to propose a possibility to
>> over(?)load operators "!","#","?","$" (both - unary and binary)
>> Thanx
>> Yan
>>
>>
>
>

mosfox@yandex.ru wrote:
> If we have more complicated objects than ints and reals and bools
> (for example - vectors, armies, rockets, planets...), then we would have more
> possible operations on them. Some of such operations will be used
> frequently. Remember scalar and cross products of vectors.
> You could overload "*" operator to get scalar product.
> Why not to overload "@" operator in order to get cross product?
> Or i must use "%" or "~" only?

How about a method called 'dot'? :)

> We find in specification
> "Since ++e is defined to be semantically equivalent to (e += 1), the
> expression ++e is rewritten as (e += 1), and then checking for operator
> overloading is done. The situation is analogous for --e".
> But who says that e is such an object that operation ++ is comutative?
> 
> Example:
> 
> Army a1 = new Army();
> a1++; // to add 1 soldier on the right flank
> ++a1; // to add 1 soldier on the left flank

eeeeek.

 -- andy

In article <c08aj5$2l2v$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...
>
>mosfox@yandex.ru wrote:
>> If we have more complicated objects than ints and reals and bools
>> (for example - vectors, armies, rockets, planets...), then we would have more
>> possible operations on them. Some of such operations will be used
>> frequently. Remember scalar and cross products of vectors.
>> You could overload "*" operator to get scalar product.
>> Why not to overload "@" operator in order to get cross product?
>> Or i must use "%" or "~" only?
>
>How about a method called 'dot'? :)

dot(dot(dot(dot(a,dot(b,dot(c,d))),e),f),g) ... %-/

..OR...

((a@(b@(c@d))@e)@f)@g



>
>> We find in specification
>> "Since ++e is defined to be semantically equivalent to (e += 1), the
>> expression ++e is rewritten as (e += 1), and then checking for operator
>> overloading is done. The situation is analogous for --e".
>> But who says that e is such an object that operation ++ is comutative?
>> 
>> Example:
>> 
>> Army a1 = new Army();
>> a1++; // to add 1 soldier on the right flank
>> ++a1; // to add 1 soldier on the left flank
>
>eeeeek.
>
>  -- andy

<snip>

> You could overload "*" operator to get scalar product.
> Why not to overload "@" operator in order to get cross product?
> Or i must use "%" or "~" only?
>

FWIW I think it would be a mistake to add more ASCII characters as operators.  UNICODE provides a rich set of mathematical symbols which are available for use.  To create a dot product operator, the unicode symbol for "DOT" (unicode 22C5) should be used.  To create a cross product operator, the UNICODE symbol for "CROSS PRODUCT" (unicode 00D7) should be used.

This is what I had in mind when I posted the following:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/19736

Also, IMO overloaded operators should not be used unless they have a clear meaning in mathmatics and make code easier to read.

Mark.

<snip>