Peter Scott writes: > I have often wondered whether a language could allow user-defined > operators. The fact that none have done it should be a clue :-) I guess > it's getting too incestuous with the lexer. Ilya sent in a patch for user-defined operators. It was rejected, not least because your new operators had to look like ``+++'' skanky quotes and all. This was probably to avoid too much lexercest. Nat
- Re: RFC 49 (v1) Objects should have builtin string ... Nathan Wiger
- Overloading && || Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: Overloading && || Peter Scott
- Re: Overloading && || Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: Overloading && || Peter Scott
- Re: Overloading && || Damian Conway
- Re: Overloading && || Damian Conway
- Re: Overloading && || Peter Scott
- Re: Overloading && || Dan Sugalski
- Re: Overloading && || Nick Ing-Simmons
- Re: Overloading && || Nathan Torkington
- Re: Overloading && || Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Overloading && || Dan Sugalski
- Re: Overloading && || Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: Overloading && || Dan Sugalski
- Re: Overloading && || Chaim Frenkel
- Re: Overloading && || David L. Nicol
- And A Parser In A Pared Tree (was Re: O... Bryan C . Warnock
- Re: And A Parser In A Pared Tree (was R... David L. Nicol
- Re: Overloading && || Damian Conway
- Re: Overloading && || Damian Conway