Sebastien Loisel wrote: > However, just for posterity (and I'm not going to pursue the argument > further than this), I'll say this. The problem of determining the > meaning (or overridability or whatever) of x=4$6 is the same as the > problem of determining the meaning of x=fooz(4,6). Since it's not a good > argument against user-defined functions, I don't see it as a good > argument against user-defined operators. The namespace of usefully mnemonic function names is infinitely larger than that of usefully mnemonic punctuation marks. User-defined functions are good, but once you have those there is no reason to have user-defined operators *as well*. Cheers, Nick.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4