home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!fuug!demos!kiae!glas!demos!microsoft.com!jimad
- From: jimad@microsoft.com
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Date: 17 Jul 92 22:44 MDT
- Subject: Re: original [re-typed] text of overloa
- Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <notes@glas.apc.org>
- Message-ID: <1992Jul17.184411.13264@microsoft>
- References: <1992Jul14.190540.2425@microsoft.>
- Nf-ID: #R:1992Jul14.190540.2425@microsoft.:-712863988:1992Jul17.184411.13264@microsoft:-1805295543:001:916
- Nf-From: microsoft.com!jimad Jul 17 22:44:00 1992
- Lines: 21
-
-
- In article <TMB.92Jul15095933@arolla.idiap.ch> tmb@idiap.ch writes:
- |Funny. I have found overloading "operator?:" indeed "worthwhile" for
- |implementing data-parallel array classes. I guess everybody has his
- |pet operator...
-
- Then I suggest that you or whoever write up a proposal for "your"
- "pet" operator, send it to the committee, and thereby garner your
- share of the abuse.
-
- When I wrote this up two years ago I did not say that I did not like
- ?: I said that did not see a use for it. I did see an important use
- for operator.() -- namely operator.() is necessary if one is going to
- write smart pointer, smart reference, smart array, reference counting
- classes etc, that are going to work correctly and safely.
-
- I agree that your suggestion for operator:? is sensible and could be
- useful, and if you write up a proposal for such an operator that makes
- sense and is implementable I will support your proposal.
-
-
-