[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I disagree. You end up with a situation where some
>
> @a * @b;
>
> are in scalar context, some not.
No, everything would be in a scalar context. If you used tie() to
specially tie a variable, then you might be able to overload +, *, -,
etc, but this is no different from overloading other objects, which you
can do currently.
> And what happens when you say
>
> @a = (1,2,2);
> @b = tie Matrix (1,2,3);
>
> @a*@b;
>
> Who wins?
There are already well-established precedence rules on operator
overloading; check out the Camel-3 chapter on it. The methods proposed
in RFC 159 would follow these same rules, although this should probably
be explicitly stated in the RFC.
-Nate
