On 07/02/2013 10:16 PM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Tuesday, 2 July 2013 at 19:47:07 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
Analogies are always broken, but the rest of the post reads to me
roughly like:
"Dogs are not pets, and should not be treated as such.
They are fundamentally different from pets.
Also, there are no other pets that bark, so it's incredibly bizarre as
well as inconsistent with the rest of the notion of a 'pet' to have a
pet dog.
- Tmion M Gehr
"
class A
{
this() {}
void foo(){}
}
A a = new A; // calls ctor, not foo
Of course constructors are special because not any function is called
upon object construction.
(We are discussing struct constructors.)
Of course. I fully agree. Obviously there is a reason why those
functions are called constructors.
But one could now extend on the original argument, and say that eg. all
the overloading rules should be different for constructors, because they
are fundamentally different and should under no circumstances be treated
like 'normal functions'. Do you see what the point is? This is not a
valid way of justifying a breaking language change.
Same logic
Logics that can prove some equivalent statements are not necessarily
equivalent. (In particular, it does not rule out inconsistency of one of
them.)
was made when ability to overload
some operators was blocked. All operators are, well, operators but you
cannot overload all of them. It appears that sometimes it does make
sense to restrict operation on some particular elements of the set and
sometimes not.
...
Such restrictions need to be justified. The justification should make
(at least some) sense. There is no point in heuristically designing
language features from observations about other language features
without applying insight.
(Anyway, I do not think that overloading of a fixed set of primitive
operators using specially named member functions is a good mechanism for
infix notation.)
