From: Pavel Chikulaev (pavel.chikulaev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-11 08:00:01
"Tobias Schwinger" wrote :
> Honest answer: I belive this idea is no good.
If I need numbers It's doesn't mean that user will see
them. I'm just going to put unique number to each tree
shape. And use with maximum value to remove
> Is it necessary to specify such rules ?
I don't know. Do you know any languages where n-arity
operators are built-in?
Actually C++ was going to have them, but it wasn't accepted.
Gotta look at that paper.
> Isn't it enough to tell your lib operator + and operator * are "expression
> object factories" rather than imperative routines ?
Bad English. Please try again with simplier words :)
> It might be possible to partially allow stuff like this using overloading [
> ref. 184.108.40.206 ], but the possibility of creating ambigous situations can't be
> fully eliminated.
I'm already using this. But aforementioned examples were
exclusions where that rule doesn't work.
-- Pavel Chikulaev
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk