• Matthias Becker <Matthias_member pathlink.com> Nov 05 2003
• Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> Nov 05 2003
• "Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> Nov 05 2003
• Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> Nov 05 2003
• "Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> Nov 05 2003
• Elias Martenson <elias-m algonet.se> Nov 06 2003
• "Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294 msn.com> Nov 05 2003
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Nov 05 2003
• Matthias Spycher <matthias coware.com> Nov 05 2003
• "Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> Nov 05 2003
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Nov 05 2003
• "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> Nov 05 2003
• "Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat -stlsoft-dot.-org> Nov 05 2003
• "Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> Nov 05 2003
• "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> Nov 05 2003
• "Luna Kid" <lunakid neuropolis.org> Nov 06 2003
• "Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> Nov 06 2003

Matthias Becker <Matthias_member pathlink.com> writes:

I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for a long
time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++ like
operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +=" instead of
"addass".

Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthias Becker says...
I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for a long
time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++ like
operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +=" instead of
"addass".


I have the same question.

Ant

"Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> writes:

I agree on this one also, just some ideas but if not operator foo something
like

__+=__ () { }
__++__ () { }

A little pythonesque ?

C

"Ant" <Ant_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bob4r4$2oo1$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthias Becker says...
I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for




time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++




operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +="




"addass".


 I have the same question.

 Ant

Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <bobc3l$2rt$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Charles Sanders says...
I agree on this one also, just some ideas but if not operator foo something
like

__+=__ () { }
__++__ () { }

A little pythonesque ?


I think I like it.
(never though I would say that about "_")

Can we do:
alias addass __+=__;
or someting like that?


Ant

"Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> writes:

Good thinking, the alias doesnt like operators though :(.

C

"Ant" <Ant_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bobdkv$56l$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <bobc3l$2rt$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Charles Sanders says...
I agree on this one also, just some ideas but if not operator foo




like

__+=__ () { }
__++__ () { }

A little pythonesque ?


 I think I like it.
 (never though I would say that about "_")

 Can we do:
 alias addass __+=__;
 or someting like that?


 Ant

Elias Martenson <elias-m algonet.se> writes:

Charles Sanders wrote:

 I agree on this one also, just some ideas but if not operator foo something
 like
 
 __+=__ () { }
 __++__ () { }
 
 A little pythonesque ?


Wouldn't this be terribly hard on the parser?

Is't __ a legal symbol today? Wouldn't the parser have to scan 2 or 3 
tokens ahead in order to determine if the initial __ is part of an 
expression or an overloading method? That would in turn break LALR?

Granted, I never looked at the D parser so I could be just talking crap 
here. :-)

Elias

"Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294 msn.com> writes:

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for a
long
| time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++
like
| operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +=" instead
of
| "addass".
|
|

Over a year ago (about june-august 2002) there was a votation about this,
and that was the winning convention.

—————————————————————————
Carlos Santander
"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for a
long
| time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++
like
| operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +=" instead
of
| "addass".
|
|

Over a year ago (about june-august 2002) there was a votation about this,
and that was the winning convention.

—————————————————————————
Carlos Santander

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for a


 time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++


 operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +=" instead


 "addass".


The reason is because of the ability to write the reverse operator
overloads, and to make the overloads easilly greppable.

Matthias Spycher <matthias coware.com> writes:

I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that this project
is progressing steadily. Keep up the good work, Walter and everyone else.

As for operator overloading, I like the naming convention, but I think all names
should be prefixed with op, as in opCall to make it clear we are dealing with
operators. Names like add are actually quite common, e.g. in collection classes.

Matthias


In article <bobi49$cde$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for a


 time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++


 operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +=" instead


 "addass".


The reason is because of the ability to write the reverse operator
overloads, and to make the overloads easilly greppable.

"Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> writes:

This sounds good ( prefixing with op ), I just dont like the word ass
everywhere in my code.

C

"Matthias Spycher" <matthias coware.com> wrote in message
news:bobmno$jge$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that this


 is progressing steadily. Keep up the good work, Walter and everyone else.

 As for operator overloading, I like the naming convention, but I think all


 should be prefixed with op, as in opCall to make it clear we are dealing


 operators. Names like add are actually quite common, e.g. in collection


 Matthias


 In article <bobi49$cde$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group






long
 time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the






like
 operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +="






of
 "addass".


The reason is because of the ability to write the reverse operator
overloads, and to make the overloads easilly greppable.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matthias Spycher" <matthias coware.com> wrote in message
news:bobmno$jge$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that this


 is progressing steadily. Keep up the good work, Walter and everyone else.


Thanks!

 As for operator overloading, I like the naming convention, but I think all


 should be prefixed with op, as in opCall to make it clear we are dealing


 operators. Names like add are actually quite common, e.g. in collection



You're right, I've been intending to do this, but I hate upsetting existing
code.

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> writes:

Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early you end
up causing multiple changes instead of just one.

Nobody is doing any mission-critical stuff in D yet anyway, so breaking code
at this phase is not a big deal.  Better to get the language right, than to
be backward compatible with an initial concept that turns out not to work
well in practice.

IOW, don't be afraid to break stuff.

Sean

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:bochg5$1rtc$3 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthias Spycher" <matthias coware.com> wrote in message
 news:bobmno$jge$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that this


 is progressing steadily. Keep up the good work, Walter and everyone




 Thanks!

 As for operator overloading, I like the naming convention, but I think




 names
 should be prefixed with op, as in opCall to make it clear we are dealing


 operators. Names like add are actually quite common, e.g. in collection



 You're right, I've been intending to do this, but I hate upsetting


 code.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat -stlsoft-dot.-org> writes:

Agreed.

btw, what's IOW? :)

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bockub$2103$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early you


 up causing multiple changes instead of just one.

 Nobody is doing any mission-critical stuff in D yet anyway, so breaking


 at this phase is not a big deal.  Better to get the language right, than


 be backward compatible with an initial concept that turns out not to work
 well in practice.

 IOW, don't be afraid to break stuff.

 Sean

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:bochg5$1rtc$3 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthias Spycher" <matthias coware.com> wrote in message
 news:bobmno$jge$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that this


 is progressing steadily. Keep up the good work, Walter and everyone




 Thanks!

 As for operator overloading, I like the naming convention, but I think




 names
 should be prefixed with op, as in opCall to make it clear we are






 with
 operators. Names like add are actually quite common, e.g. in






 classes.

 You're right, I've been intending to do this, but I hate upsetting


 code.

"Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> writes:

In Other Words.  Thirded!

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat -stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message
news:boclem$21vv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Agreed.

 btw, what's IOW? :)

 "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> wrote in message
 news:bockub$2103$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early you


 up causing multiple changes instead of just one.

 Nobody is doing any mission-critical stuff in D yet anyway, so breaking


 at this phase is not a big deal.  Better to get the language right, than


 be backward compatible with an initial concept that turns out not to




 well in practice.

 IOW, don't be afraid to break stuff.

 Sean

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:bochg5$1rtc$3 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthias Spycher" <matthias coware.com> wrote in message
 news:bobmno$jge$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that








 project
 is progressing steadily. Keep up the good work, Walter and everyone




 Thanks!

 As for operator overloading, I like the naming convention, but I








 all
 names
 should be prefixed with op, as in opCall to make it clear we are






 with
 operators. Names like add are actually quite common, e.g. in






 classes.

 You're right, I've been intending to do this, but I hate upsetting


 code.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bockub$2103$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early you


 up causing multiple changes instead of just one.

 Nobody is doing any mission-critical stuff in D yet anyway, so breaking


 at this phase is not a big deal.  Better to get the language right, than


 be backward compatible with an initial concept that turns out not to work
 well in practice.

 IOW, don't be afraid to break stuff.


Ok, I guess it will be in the next version. I really do hate breaking
things.

"Luna Kid" <lunakid neuropolis.org> writes:

 "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> wrote in message
 news:bockub$2103$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early you


 up causing multiple changes instead of just one.

 Nobody is doing any mission-critical stuff in D yet anyway, so breaking


 at this phase is not a big deal.  Better to get the language right, than


 be backward compatible with an initial concept that turns out not to work
 well in practice.

 IOW, don't be afraid to break stuff.


 Ok, I guess it will be in the next version. I really do hate breaking
 things.



Please, never hesitate about this under 1.00 ;)

I guess the D users, who are supposed to be on the
losing side when this happens, would unanimously vote
for "please break our experimental code!" rather than
"please freeze little annoyances and limit our future
production code/style!".

Cheers,
Sz.

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> writes:

Absolutely. Break now is *always* better than crap later

"Luna Kid" <lunakid neuropolis.org> wrote in message
news:bodgvp$a4l$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> wrote in message
 news:bockub$2103$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early






 end
 up causing multiple changes instead of just one.

 Nobody is doing any mission-critical stuff in D yet anyway, so






 code
 at this phase is not a big deal.  Better to get the language right,






 to
 be backward compatible with an initial concept that turns out not to






 well in practice.

 IOW, don't be afraid to break stuff.


 Ok, I guess it will be in the next version. I really do hate breaking
 things.



 Please, never hesitate about this under 1.00 ;)

 I guess the D users, who are supposed to be on the
 losing side when this happens, would unanimously vote
 for "please break our experimental code!" rather than
 "please freeze little annoyances and limit our future
 production code/style!".

 Cheers,
 Sz.