Overloading relational operators separately; thoughts?

[pineapple via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 07:58:26 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
> On 9/28/2016 11:48 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> If that is not allowed, why is this allowed:
>
> I.e. you can overload '+' to do bad things. Yes, you can, and 
> as I replied upthread that can be done because there's no way 
> to prevent that while having operator overloading at all.
>
> But that is not justification for allowing such disasters for 
> the comparison operators. I.e. one weakness is not 
> justification for opening the door to all weakness.
>
> Interestingly, by shutting the door on misuse of the comparison 
> operators, it seems D has been successful in discouraging 
> nutburger designs like overloading '+' to mean 'OR'.
>
>> The language you just provide a set of tools, then it's up the 
>> to the programmer
>> to do what he/she wants to do.
>
> That can be used to justify any feature at all.

This is not an argument to justify adding just any feature, it's 
an argument that it is idiocy to give a programmer a powerful 
tool, and then impose arbitrary limitations upon how they are 
allowed to use it.

One of the most popular topics of discussion in this forum is 
"Why is D not more widely adopted?" and "What can we do to get 
broader adoption for D?"

Perhaps one of the more obvious answers is: Do not prevent 
programmers from doing something solely on the basis that _you_ 
would not want to do it.

I think camelCase is hideous, but does that mean I should forbid 
another programmer defining symbols in that style? Of course not. 
That they are able to write their code that way doesn't mean I 
have to, and doesn't mean I have to use or interface with their 
code. I agree that '+' should always mean addition and '~' should 
always mean concatenation, but does that mean I should forbid 
another programmer from defining them differently? Of course not. 
Just because they are able to do it that way doesn't mean I have 
to, or that I have to use their code.

If I thought '>' and '<' should always mean arithmetic 
comparison, does that mean I should forbid another programmer 
from defining them differently?

You need to understand that _you are not the only one writing 
code in this language_. Your use cases do not summarize all 
possible use cases. That you do not need to use a tool in a 
specific way is not a valid argument against allowing others to 
use the tool that way.

Give us a rational argument. We are unconcerned with your 
personal dogma. What you refer to as a weakness I view as a 
strength. Programmers require more flexibility and 
expressiveness, not less.