On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:50:54 -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > Except that it kind of is. It's an example of a language allowing you to > mess with too much and make it so that it doesn't function as expected, > which is what happens when you overload operators to act in a way > inconsistent with how they work with the built-in types.
The perl example is a line of code buried somewhere that changes the meaning of the rest of the code. Operator overloading is restricted to a specific user-defined type. With such a dramatic difference in the scope of the change, the analogy is useless.
