Overloading relational operators separately; thoughts?

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On 2016-09-29 11:31, pineapple wrote:

> 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.

Well said.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg