Why Java Doesn't Need Operator Overloading (and Very Few Languages

[Yigal Chripun]

On 15/04/2009 18:25, Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Robert Fraser
> <fraserofthenight at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> bearophile wrote:
>>> Are there few non-arithmetic operators (that will support operator
>>> overloading too) with a clear semantics that can be added to D?
>> a ♥ b
>>
>
> opLove.

sounds silly to me. Why not simply generalize and allow defining in-fix 
functions like in functional languages? that also includes allowing any 
unicode character[s].
for example, why not allow:
if (M ⊨ a ∨ b) { ... }

or:
(a concat b concat c)  [same as  (a ~ b ~ c)]

or:
if (A dated B || B dated A) { .. }

the current system is too limiting, maybe that's why it's more 
susceptible to being abused?
if C++ had this, I'm sure that the awful << for streams wouldn't have 
been used.