Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:35:18 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > grauzone wrote: >> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> The rewrite is done long after lexing, so no low-level problems there. >> >> Oh, I thought it would let you introduce new operators. But it's only >> about the existing ones. >> >> I find the idea to identify the operator using a string very sloppy and >> sillyl just like using string mixins for small delegates in >> std.algorithm etc.; but you'd probably say "it works and is useful" and >> "it's short" and "it solves the current problem", so... whatever. > > We're trying to improve on the current situation, which forces the user > to manually define a lot of small functions. If you have convincing > reasons to argue that the current state of affairs is actually better, > I'm all ears - both Walter and I could use less work, particularly if > the outcome sucks (see e.g. T[new]). Also, if you have ideas on how > things could be done in a way that you'd find not sloppy and not silly, > that would be even better.
Does the new system allow overriding only some binary operations and not all of them at once? I thought generic member functions were non-virtual?
