home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!lhdsy1!kato.lahabra.chevron.com!hwrvo
- From: hwrvo@kato.lahabra.chevron.com (W.R. Volz)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: New operators wish list
- Message-ID: <5248@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com>
- Date: 21 Jul 92 16:18:10 GMT
- References: <658@manutius.UUCP>
- Sender: news@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com
- Organization: Chevron Oil Field Research Company
- Lines: 80
-
- In article <658@manutius.UUCP>, garyp@manutius.UUCP (Gary Powell) writes:
- |> Ok, Ok Ok...lets cut the relgion and get to the meat of the matter.
- |>
- |> It appears to me that there are a large number of folks who want the following
- |> new operators added to the language.
- |>
- |> 1) ||=
- |>
- |> where: x ||= y <==> x = x || y
- |>
- |> Seems resonable as it matches all the "Blah"= operators.
- |>
- |> 2) &&=
- |>
- |> where: x &&= y <==> x = x && y
- |>
- |> Also seems reasonable for the same issue as #1.
- |>
- |>
- |> 3) ===
- |>
- |> where x === y <==> x = x == y
- |>
- |> I have more trouble looking at this one, but again it still fits the
- |> "blah"= operator rule. So it maybe that I just haven't thought about
- |> it long enough. Anyway I recommend it.
- |>
- |> 4) some set of chars yet to be determined which bind tighter than the * and /
- |> for which x power y is x raised to the power of y.
- |>
- |> This seems reasonable but again has the problem of what do we do with
- |> the odd ball arguments of y and x?
- |>
- |> I recommend we define it as an operator but leave its implementation alone
- |> and let everyone overload it as they see fit. And I don't care which
- |> set or single character is chosen. My reasoning is that the current
- |> arguments don't seem to be converging. Maybe someone else (I'm sure I'll
- |> see heat on this one.) would care to summarize the arguments on this.
- |>
- |> 5) "."
- |> Lets add this. I mean really, no one's code will break if we have it,
- |> the earth will not shake and the sky fall down. If it turns out to be
- |> not as useful as Jim claims..so what? We'll drop it from language "D"
- |> the next generation.
- |>
- |> Any others I've missed???
- |>
- |> Lets get on with it. Like it or not many of us have to work with C++ even
- |> though language "X" is better at some other task. Lets add the features folks
- |> clamor for. IF they can make a convincing statement of "It won't break any
- |> existing code. And it is possible for someone of resonable experience
- |> programming to use it without shooting themselves in the foot."
- |>
- |> We still have a lot of other pressing problems, like how to incorporate
- |> persistance, and how to do good garbage collection, and how to at run time
- |> create objects whose type isn't known until after the program is running.
- |>
- |>
- |> BTW.
- |> Could you folks who want to argue language issues move your discussion over
- |> to this group? Then we can quit annoying the folks who want to compare
- |> Borland to Mircosoft or ask the beginners questions. And I don't have
- |> to read 100 or more messages to find the language issue ones.
- |>
-
- Whoa. All of these are simply programmer convienences (sp?). I would rather
- code a few more characters and be able to clearly read the code than save a few
- bytes of disk space. If that many new operators are going to be added,
- why not just make it a rule for all binary operators?
-
- .i.e, x (op)= y; <==> x = x (op) y;
-
- --
-
- ======================
- Bill Volz
- Chevron Oil Field Research Co.
- Exploration Research/Geophysics Division.
- P.O. Box 446, La Habra, CA 90633-0446
- Phone: (310) 694-9340
-