Overloading relational operators separately; thoughts?

[Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d]

On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 21:15 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
> On 9/28/2016 1:40 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> > 
> > What's wrong with that usage?
> 
> Because then something other than comparison is happening with <=, <,
> >, >= and 
> there'll be nothing in the code to give the user a hint.

This is a very "tunnel vision" view of programming language and the way
programs are constructed and perceived. But sadly I know we have been
round this many times, and you will not be changing you viewpoint. But
even though I know nothing will change, I feel required to take on the
challenge again. Until you cite psychology of programming experimental
data to back up any position, it is all just opinion and personal
experience. I am happy with << as very much less than, or output
depending on context, you are not. But it is bad philosophy for me to
say << is comprehensible to me and so it is comprehensible to everyone,
and equally bad philosophy for you to say the same with
s/comprehensible/incomprehensible/.

This sort of thing happened in Python with the reduce function, leaving
Python 3 in a truly inconsistent position regarding higher order
functions.

So when it comes to writing DSLs I'll stick with Python and Groovy,
until D gets it right.

[…]


-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20160929/1e939280/attachment.sig>