On Sun, 2016-10-30 at 10:06 +0100, Cédric Champeau wrote: > I'm -1 on adding custom operators. We always said we wouldn't fall > into the > same trap as C++ or Scala, but instead allow overriding existing > operators.
I like custom operators as in Algol-68 and Scala. It is just that some Scala codes take things too far, showing a lack of self-restraint, and inability to read. This however is not a reason to abandon the idea. Consider that C++ and Python both restrict the overloading to the operators known to the compiler. Note that Java removed this because it was too hard for programmers to understand. Note that Groovy has reintroduced this because programmers wanted it. Also that Scala and Kotlin have followed suit and/or gone further. There is a balance between condescension and authoritarianism (which a number of programming languages are now following) and leaving it to the programmer to do the right thing at the risk of them not, but it is their problem. I am not a fan of condescending authoritarianism. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
