Re: [boost] [xint] Unary operator+

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Unary operator+
From: DE (satan66613_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-05 15:40:40

on 05.05.2010 at 23:18
 Chad Nelson wrote :

> On 05/05/2010 01:37 PM, DE wrote:

>>>>> I suspect you (Robert) might be looking at the unary + operator...
>>>>
>>>> Doh!  So I was.  I didn't even look at the argument list when I saw
>>>> it because I've never overloaded the unary +!
>> 
>>> I don't know anyone who does, but I assume that someone out there,
>>> someone will, and would be irritated if it didn't work the same as the
>>> built in integer types.
>> 
>> that person is me definitly

> I was just wishing, when I wrote that, that I did know someone who did
> that... purely out of curiosity, I wanted to ask why they (i.e. you) did
> that? Is it just to make it more obvious that it's supposed to be a
> positive number instead of a negative one?

i think i expressed my thought incorrectly (or misinterpreted your
message)
i meant i'm the person who would expect overloaded unary 'operator+'
to be out there
it's natural that it does nothing (i.e. returns unmodified argument)

-- 
Pavel
P.S.
if you notice a grammar mistake or weird phrasing in my message
please point it out