From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-01 06:34:13
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Frank Mori Hess <fmhess_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Saturday 31 May 2008 21:19, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>> > Personally, I don't particularly want to see a future
>> > library overload any logical operators at all, or at least have the
>> > overloads sequestered in separate headers that aren't included by any
>> > of the other future library headers.
>> That's a matter of taste, for sure. But would you mind telling us why
>> you don't want to have these? Your opinion sounds to be quite strong, so
>> you must have good reasons!
> It's the obvious reason. I don't think taking a function with a 2 letter
> name, which is already overloaded, and adding a new set of overloads to it
> which have semantics completely unrelated to the existing overloads is a
> desirable or aesthetically pleasing interface. No one would even consider
> doing such a thing if the function wasn't an operator. I guess I just
> don't find operator syntax as compelling a feature as others.
I tend to agree with Frank's view of overloading && and || for futures.
I'm surely not a never-overload-operators-guy. I, for instance, love spirit.
But in spirit && and || has a specific meaning inside EBNF domain.
In futures, we're just inventing that meaning.
Couldn't lambda's help us more than overloading here?
-- Felipe Magno de Almeida
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk