|Introducing new operators (was: Re: Scientists as Programmers) firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (1992-09-08)|
|Re: Introducing new operators (was: Re: Scientists as Programmers) email@example.com (1992-09-11)|
|Re: Introducing new operators (was: Re: Scientists as Programmers) firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-09-11)|
|From:||email@example.com (Chris Dollin)|
|Organization:||Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.|
|Date:||Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:57:23 GMT|
In article ... firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes:
>> C++ allows you to overload existing operators, although to make compiler
>> writer's jobs easier, it does not allow you to introduce new operators.
>[argument whether it's nearly impossible, trivial, or somewhere between]
I think that "next to impossible" is perhaps overstating the case a
All the same, it is not trivial. If you also have to worry about backwards
compatability with C, it becomes very difficult indeed, I suspect.
And in my original message (the intro to which appears above), I did note that
compatability with C did present C++ language designers with a problem, viz,
preserving its lexis, if they wanted to have user-defined operators.
In a follow-up in comp.lang.misc, I have also noted that user-defined operator
(name) 's do not require user-define dprecedences, and that in fact I am happy
for the language to have a well-chosen *single* precedence for UDOs. This, I
submit, *does* make UDOs ``trivial'' to implement.
So long as they are designed in from the start, and not hacked on later.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.