Jon, > But is it? An instance method has a natural asymmetry. The this operand is > treated differently to an argument for example. With a static method there > is no asymmetry. An instance method also suggests virtualness which I am > not convinced is a happy bedfellow of an operator. I think perhaps a > static method matches an operator better. Opinions?
As far as I'm concerned, it's essentially a matter of taste. > Yes. But why is it called op_Addition and not Add. Because it could interfere with anothe method called Add(). At least that's my guess. It's probably also because they use the op_ prefix to avoid other clashes and make all operator names similar. > Or to put it another > way, why is there a need for op_Addition _and_ Add? Couldn't the operator > be translated into a method with the recommended friendly name? They _could_ have used a method forwarding strategy. In fact, that would've been fairly easy to build a compiler that does it automatically. OTOH, I'm personally not very keen on that kind of things... it can be confusing to have the compiler inserting methods with commonly used names. (or even worse, have the runtime do it) -- Tomas Restrepo [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.
