Overloading relational operators separately; thoughts?

Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Thu Sep 29 05:08:24 PDT 2016

On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 21:15 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
> On 9/28/2016 1:40 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > 
> > What's wrong with that usage?
> Because then something other than comparison is happening with <=, <,
> >, >= and 
> there'll be nothing in the code to give the user a hint.

This is a very "tunnel vision" view of programming language and the way
programs are constructed and perceived. But sadly I know we have been
round this many times, and you will not be changing you viewpoint. But
even though I know nothing will change, I feel required to take on the
challenge again. Until you cite psychology of programming experimental
data to back up any position, it is all just opinion and personal
experience. I am happy with << as very much less than, or output
depending on context, you are not. But it is bad philosophy for me to
say << is comprehensible to me and so it is comprehensible to everyone,
and equally bad philosophy for you to say the same with

This sort of thing happened in Python with the reduce function, leaving
Python 3 in a truly inconsistent position regarding higher order

So when it comes to writing DSLs I'll stick with Python and Groovy,
until D gets it right.


Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20160929/1e939280/attachment.sig>

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list