www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

D - Proposal: overloading of ! and # and $ etc.

reply Yan <Yan_member pathlink.com> writes:
I would like to propose a possibility to

Thanx
Yan
Feb 08 2004
next sibling parent reply "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
To do what?

Please provide examples of what you intend, so we can give you opinions

"Yan" <Yan_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c0695d$2b15$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I would like to propose a possibility to

 Thanx
 Yan
Feb 08 2004
parent reply mosfox yandex.ru writes:
If we have more complicated objects than ints and reals and bools
(for example - vectors, armies, rockets, planets...), then we would have more
possible operations on them. Some of such operations will be used
frequently. Remember scalar and cross products of vectors.
You could overload "*" operator to get scalar product.
Why not to overload " " operator in order to get cross product?
Or i must use "%" or "~" only?

We find in specification
"Since ++e is defined to be semantically equivalent to (e += 1), the
expression ++e is rewritten as (e += 1), and then checking for operator
overloading is done. The situation is analogous for --e".
But who says that e is such an object that operation ++ is comutative?

Example:

Army a1 = new Army();
a1++; // to add 1 soldier on the right flank
++a1; // to add 1 soldier on the left flank










In article <c06f1p$2kkr$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...

To do what?

Please provide examples of what you intend, so we can give you opinions

"Yan" <Yan_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c0695d$2b15$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I would like to propose a possibility to

 Thanx
 Yan
Feb 09 2004
next sibling parent reply Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
mosfox yandex.ru wrote:

 If we have more complicated objects than ints and reals and bools
 (for example - vectors, armies, rockets, planets...), then we would have more
 possible operations on them. Some of such operations will be used
 frequently. Remember scalar and cross products of vectors.
 You could overload "*" operator to get scalar product.
 Why not to overload " " operator in order to get cross product?
 Or i must use "%" or "~" only?


How about a method called 'dot'? :)


 We find in specification
 "Since ++e is defined to be semantically equivalent to (e += 1), the
 expression ++e is rewritten as (e += 1), and then checking for operator
 overloading is done. The situation is analogous for --e".
 But who says that e is such an object that operation ++ is comutative?
 
 Example:
 
 Army a1 = new Army();
 a1++; // to add 1 soldier on the right flank
 ++a1; // to add 1 soldier on the left flank


eeeeek.

  -- andy
Feb 09 2004
parent reply Yan <Yan_member pathlink.com> writes:
In article <c08aj5$2l2v$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...

mosfox yandex.ru wrote:

 If we have more complicated objects than ints and reals and bools
 (for example - vectors, armies, rockets, planets...), then we would have more
 possible operations on them. Some of such operations will be used
 frequently. Remember scalar and cross products of vectors.
 You could overload "*" operator to get scalar product.
 Why not to overload " " operator in order to get cross product?
 Or i must use "%" or "~" only?


How about a method called 'dot'? :)


dot(dot(dot(dot(a,dot(b,dot(c,d))),e),f),g) ... %-/

..OR...

((a (b (c d)) e) f) g




 We find in specification
 "Since ++e is defined to be semantically equivalent to (e += 1), the
 expression ++e is rewritten as (e += 1), and then checking for operator
 overloading is done. The situation is analogous for --e".
 But who says that e is such an object that operation ++ is comutative?
 
 Example:
 
 Army a1 = new Army();
 a1++; // to add 1 soldier on the right flank
 ++a1; // to add 1 soldier on the left flank


eeeeek.

  -- andy
Feb 09 2004
parent reply Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
Yan wrote:

 In article <c08aj5$2l2v$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Andy Friesen says...
 

How about a method called 'dot'? :)


 
 
 dot(dot(dot(dot(a,dot(b,dot(c,d))),e),f),g) ... %-/
 
 ..OR...
 
 ((a (b (c d)) e) f) g


For one, I've never been a subscriber of the Perlish notion of attaching 
some arbitrary meaning to an arbitrary operator because it's convenient. 
(I'm not a fan of Perl in general, but I digress)

For another, I thought dotting two vectors yielded a scalar, in this 
particular case.

Lastly, neither of those two examples are the least bit intelligible, 
but at least I can guess that the dot product operation is involved in 
the first.

  -- andy
Feb 09 2004
parent reply J Anderson <REMOVEanderson badmama.com.au> writes:
Andy Friesen wrote:


 For one, I've never been a subscriber of the Perlish notion of 
 attaching some arbitrary meaning to an arbitrary operator because it's 
 convenient. (I'm not a fan of Perl in general, but I digress)


C uses allot of symbols with arbitrary meanings too. It's just that 
people have gotten use to them.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
Feb 09 2004
parent Andy Friesen <andy ikagames.com> writes:
J Anderson wrote:

 Andy Friesen wrote:
 

 For one, I've never been a subscriber of the Perlish notion of 
 attaching some arbitrary meaning to an arbitrary operator because it's 
 convenient. (I'm not a fan of Perl in general, but I digress)


 C uses allot of symbols with arbitrary meanings too. It's just that 
 people have gotten use to them.
 


Right, but I won't get anywhere by suggesting that ! be dropped in 
favour of 'not' and so forth.  I'll settle for nipping it in the bud, as 
it were. :)

  -- andy
Feb 09 2004
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Mark J. Brudnak" <mjbrudna oakland.edu> writes:
<snip>


 You could overload "*" operator to get scalar product.
 Why not to overload " " operator in order to get cross product?
 Or i must use "%" or "~" only?


FWIW I think it would be a mistake to add more ASCII characters as
operators.  UNICODE provides a rich set of mathematical symbols which are
available for use.  To create a dot product operator, the unicode symbol for
"DOT" (unicode 22C5) should be used.  To create a cross product operator,
the UNICODE symbol for "CROSS PRODUCT" (unicode 00D7) should be used.

This is what I had in mind when I posted the following:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/19736

Also, IMO overloaded operators should not be used unless they have a clear
meaning in mathmatics and make code easier to read.

Mark.

<snip>
Feb 09 2004
parent "davepermen" <davepermen hotmail.com> writes:
unicode is useless on a keyboard. thats why ascii only should be used. there
is no need for anything more. it just makes typing much more hell.

"Mark J. Brudnak" <mjbrudna oakland.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c08vi8$198c$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 <snip>


 You could overload "*" operator to get scalar product.
 Why not to overload " " operator in order to get cross product?
 Or i must use "%" or "~" only?


 FWIW I think it would be a mistake to add more ASCII characters as
 operators.  UNICODE provides a rich set of mathematical symbols which are
 available for use.  To create a dot product operator, the unicode symbol


for

 "DOT" (unicode 22C5) should be used.  To create a cross product operator,
 the UNICODE symbol for "CROSS PRODUCT" (unicode 00D7) should be used.

 This is what I had in mind when I posted the following:

 http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?D/19736

 Also, IMO overloaded operators should not be used unless they have a clear
 meaning in mathmatics and make code easier to read.

 Mark.

 <snip>
Feb 09 2004
prev sibling parent "Matthew" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:
<mosfox yandex.ru> wrote in message news:c08a6g$2kld$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 If we have more complicated objects than ints and reals and bools
 (for example - vectors, armies, rockets, planets...), then we would have


more

 possible operations on them. Some of such operations will be used
 frequently. Remember scalar and cross products of vectors.
 You could overload "*" operator to get scalar product.
 Why not to overload " " operator in order to get cross product?
 Or i must use "%" or "~" only?

 We find in specification
 "Since ++e is defined to be semantically equivalent to (e += 1), the
 expression ++e is rewritten as (e += 1), and then checking for operator
 overloading is done. The situation is analogous for --e".
 But who says that e is such an object that operation ++ is comutative?

 Example:

 Army a1 = new Army();
 a1++; // to add 1 soldier on the right flank
 ++a1; // to add 1 soldier on the left flank


I'm assuming you're continuing in an ironic vein, as that's just monstrous
nonsense. Any serious code review of such code would mark it "must try
again".




 In article <c06f1p$2kkr$2 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew says...

To do what?

Please provide examples of what you intend, so we can give you opinions

"Yan" <Yan_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:c0695d$2b15$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I would like to propose a possibility to

 Thanx
 Yan
Feb 09 2004
prev sibling parent reply Matthias Becker <Matthias_member pathlink.com> writes:
I would like to propose a possibility to



Hey, that's unfair! Why $ but not €?
Feb 09 2004
parent reply "davepermen" <davepermen hotmail.com> writes:
and what about £ ?

and then we have °, and § and ¬ and ¦ and ¢ and ¨ ?

:D

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c07skh$1uhc$1 digitaldaemon.com...

I would like to propose a possibility to



 Hey, that's unfair! Why $ but not €?
Feb 09 2004
parent reply "Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle4 juno.com> writes:
for more amusement along these lines check out
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/whitespace98.pdf

"davepermen" <davepermen hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c07srf$1uut$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| and what about £ ?
|
| and then we have °, and § and ¬ and ¦ and ¢ and ¨ ?
|
| :D
|
| "Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
| news:c07skh$1uhc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| > >I would like to propose a possibility to

| >
| > Hey, that's unfair! Why $ but not ??
| >
| >
|
|
Feb 09 2004
parent "davepermen" <davepermen hotmail.com> writes:
i know that yet.. what about the one with the \\ comments? :D

here is the comment \\ x = 10;

:D

"Ben Hinkle" <bhinkle4 juno.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c0846h$2b01$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 for more amusement along these lines check out
 http://www.research.att.com/~bs/whitespace98.pdf

 "davepermen" <davepermen hotmail.com> wrote in message
 news:c07srf$1uut$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 | and what about £ ?
 |
 | and then we have °, and § and ¬ and ¦ and ¢ and ¨ ?
 |
 | :D
 |
 | "Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
 | news:c07skh$1uhc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 | > >I would like to propose a possibility to

 | >
 | > Hey, that's unfair! Why $ but not ??
 | >
 | >
 |
 |
Feb 09 2004