From: Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-19 14:03:38
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:14:57PM -0300, Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> Here's my review of the lambda sublibrary:
Thanks for these comments!
One comment/question in return:
> OTOH, I don't agree with the arguments against overloaded operators.
> Since FC++ lambda expressions are explicit I can't see any overload
> resolution problems.
> Given that C++ allows you to overload operators is hard to understand why
> would I have to write
> [X %plus% 1] instead of [X+1]
> The docs says that this is in order to keep the interface small, that a
> compact interface is easier to remember that a wide one.
> However, C++ operators are so ubiquitous that the above argument doesn't
> hold... no one needs to "additionally" remember that he can use
> operators.... rather, with FC++, we need to remember that when can't; and
> furthermore, we need to remember what the spelling for "==" is: %equal%,
> %equal_to%, or whatever.
> Also, lambda comprenhesions and guards do use overloaded operators. IMO,
> this library feature will be much less frequently used than lambda
> expressions per see, so IMO those overloads should be moved into the
> expressions themselves and taken out from the comprenhensions/guards.
> This of course doesn't mean that the %f% should be drop alltoghther, or that
> the operator-like functoids removed.
> Just allow lambda expression to use (the most common at least) C++
> Anyway, I think comprenhensions, guards, "let"/"letrec" and the LEType
> subsystem are great library features, so I'd like to keep this part of the
> library even thought it overlaps partially BLL.
I am just trying to clarify your opinion. You like "let"; in FC++,
"let" works something like this:
// inside a lambda expression
let[ X == 3 ].in[ someLambdaExpressionInvolvingX ]
You also say you would like it if common operators were overloaded, so
we don't have to write
X %equal% 3
I think as it stands now, these two are incompatible goals. We are
currently overloading == to mean let-binding; we could overload it to
mean %equal%, but then I'd want new syntax for let-binding.
(Similarly, F[X] means delayed function call, not array indexing, as
things currently stand.)
How you would choose to resolve this issue?
-- -Brian McNamara (lorgon_at_[hidden])
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk