What did you think about an implicitConversionOp ?
Max Samukha
maxsamukha at gmail.com
Sun Dec 27 13:43:51 UTC 2020
On Sunday, 27 December 2020 at 09:27:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> 3. operator overloading for non-arithmetic purposes
I guess you intended to say it was a bad idea to redefine the
well-established meaning of some operators defined by mathematics
or the language itself (like '+' for concatenation or '<<' for
IO)?
Otherwise, operators are just functions with infix syntax and
non-alpha-numeric names. I haven't heard any (reasonable)
complaints about ">>=" or "<*>" in Haskell, for example.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list