Boost logo

Boost :

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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at