On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 12:06 -0800, Walter Bright wrote: […] I have been waiting to answer this as I wanted to do some experiment first. However circumstances mean that this playing will have to wait till the Christmas break. I thought I should put a place holder message in though to mark that a reply is coming.
> Using operator overloading to create a DSL is just wrong. Part of the design > of > operator overloading in D is to deliberately frustrate such attempts. > > + should mean addition, not union, concatenation, etc. Overloading is there > to > support addition on user defined types, not to invent new meanings for it. > > Embedded DSLs should be visually distinct, and D provides the ability for > that > with string mixins and CTFE. I think this position is too restrictive and just wrong. If D is really aiming to stop internal DSLs using operators then D is missing the whole point of abstraction. But as noted I want code not just waffle to further this discussion. […] -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder