On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Henry Vermaak <henry.verm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 29/07/11 06:39, Jürgen Hestermann wrote: >> >> >> Bernd schrieb: >> > Occasionally I hear other people mentioning operator overloading as a >> > must-have feature of any decent language but I wonder what real-world >> > problems they are actually solving with it. >> >> I think operator overloading is a pain. As you said: What is the >> advantage? For me operators should be defined by the language only > > It improves readability, making it more logical. Say for instance you are > working on Galois fields and you have to do arithmetic on the elements like > this: > > g1 + g2 / g3 > > If you don't have operator overloading, you have to do it with functions, > like this: > > gf_add(g1, gf_div(g2, g3)) > > This is not very readable, I'm sure you will agree. They have to be used > carefully, however.
That's the problem, you always have to be very careful. They are easy to overlook in the code. You can circumvent type-checking. One more thing for the IDE to support (if it doesn't, you're royally screwed). At least in *Pascal strings are native types, so one less problem (and a big one in C++) to worry. >> clear. But now there is no way back. It's implemented. Pascal moves in C >> direction... > > Troll. C has no operator overloading. > > Henry Of course he meant C++. -Flávio _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal