Malcolm V wrote:
> Also, I don't pull out the wooden stake just for operator overloading,
Sorry, many very reasonable people would disagree with this. CW, my C++ linear
algebra example. Having '+' do sensible things with objects like matrices
makes a huge amount of sense. On the other hand the C++ library using "<<"
to access the output stream is simply crack.
> overloading of any kind requires me to think too hard, that's the
> compiler's job.
Sorry, I still disagree.
Function name overloading is a good thing. It means that you can a
function named foobar which can carry out the foobar operation on
more than one type of operand:
void foobar (int i) ;
void foobar (float f) ;
makes far more sense than:
void foobar_i (int i) ;
void foobar_f (float f) ;
especially as the number of different operand types increases. In
this particular example, the compiler should figure out that
foobar (my_int) ;
and
foobar (my_float) ;
are two different functions.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"Whenever the C++ language designers had two competing ideas as to
how they should solve some problem, they said, "OK, we'll do them
both". So the language is too baroque for my taste." -- Donald E Knuth
_______________________________________________
coders mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/coders
