I completely agree.
Because of such things, I wrote the comment about the return type in the
first place ;)
2014-07-06 21:53 GMT+02:00 gentlebeldin <gentlebel...@hotmail.com>:
> "One might rather choose for example the type of the first parameter,
> making + non associative."
>
> Hmm, I'd leave such abominations to the creators of Java, who managed to
> forbid operator overloading for simple folks just because they got it
> horribly wrong with + for (String, anything), making + not just
> non-commutative, but non-associative as well, because (""+2)+3 != ""+(2+3),
> If you want something just left-associative, why not use <<, say?
>
