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