"Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:ce51g7$1v8s$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <ce4r8j$1s0a$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
>
> >> if the "unary plus" operator didn't exist, we wouldn't have this
problem
> >;)
> >>
> >> what the hell is it for anyway?  jill wants to know too.
> >
> >For completeness. It should be overloadable, though.
>
> Cool. What would you call it though? opDoNothing()? opTrivial()?

opUnaryAdd()

"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ce5bgk$22f6$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
>
> >>> "Ilya Zaitseff" <sark7@mail333.com> wrote in message news:opsbpwecsuaaezs2@ilya.tec.amursk.ru...
> >>>
> >>>> void main()
> >>>> {
> >>>>    int i, j;
> >>>>    int k = (i)+j;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> [dmd 0.96] outputs: C style cast deprecated, use cast(i)(j)
> <snip>
> > You will once I take out C style casts completely. But unlike C, you
never
> > need to enclose an identifier in redundant parens, so it isn't a
problem.
> > (It's needed in C because of macro arguments.)
>
> I personally don't see much difficulty in trying to parse it as an AddExpression first ...

Consider (identifier). Is identifier a type, or a variable? The parser doesn't know, as it does not do semantic analysis.

Walter wrote:

>>Cool. What would you call it though? opDoNothing()? opTrivial()?
> 
> opUnaryAdd()

Just a feeling... UnaryAdd feels a bit "technical" for me.

Since +5 is positive 5, and -5 is negative 5, what do you think of:

opPositive for unary add
opNegative  for unary subtract

James McComb

"Arcane Jill" <Arcane_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:ce51c7$1v7j$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <ce4bnm$1lla$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Jarrett Billingsley says...
> >
> >if the "unary plus" operator didn't exist, we wouldn't have this problem
;)
>
> Well, actually, we'd still have the problem with unary minus.
>
> This problem will go away in time, once C-style casts change from
"deprecated"
> to "illegal". (But I'd still like to know what unary plus is for, given
that we
> can't overload it to do anything useful).

completeness!

I can write:

real x = +sin(angle)*W+cos(angle)*H;
real y = -sin(angle)*W-cos(angle)*H;

or something like that that makes sence. Now the first + makes the difference between x and y much clearer.


>
> Jill
>
>
>
>