Overloading relational operators separately; thoughts?

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, September 30, 2016 09:55:36 pineapple via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Friday, 30 September 2016 at 00:50:54 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>
> wrote:
> > Except that it kind of is. It's an example of a language
> > allowing you to mess with too much and make it so that it
> > doesn't function as expected, which is what happens when you
> > overload operators to act in a way inconsistent with how they
> > work with the built-in types.
>
> Which language is more widely used? D or Perl?
>
> Let me see if I understand your argument: We can't make D more
> expressive because a language far more popular than D is so
> expressive it makes it possible to do unconventional things, if
> you are so inclined?

perl is always widely considered to be a horrible language even if it is
useful. And the example that was given for what you can do with perl is
pretty insane.

Regardless, D already has a lot of powerful stuff in it, much of which will
allow you to blow your foot off if you're really inclined to. The overloaded
operators just so happened to be implemented in a way that doesn't let you
blow your feet off as freely as C++'s overloaded operators will let you do.

- Jonathan M Davis