How about extending the available number precisions? If you're using "infinite precision" numbers (which aren't built in to any language I'm familiar with) then you'd definately want +, -, *, etc. to be overloaded. c=a.add(b) is sucky syntax!
The real power, however, is when you have mixed variable types that can't be determined at compile-time. Then, you can have runtime determination of the correct method without scrambling your syntax. Does that make sense? --Ben S.Isaac Dealey wrote: > heh... I guess... though isn't overloading the operator still tacking > on another method? You just happen to be tacking on a method that > replaces an inherited method that's not relevant to your object (and > so wouldn't be used anyway). I agree it could "neaten up" the code in > some cases... I'm just not sure that's a real boon. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase Studio MX with Flash Pro from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=51 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:155289 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
