• Matthias Becker (4/4) Nov 05 2003 I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for...
• Ant (3/7) Nov 05 2003 I have the same question.
• Charles Sanders (11/21) Nov 05 2003 I agree on this one also, just some ideas but if not operator foo someth...
• Ant (7/12) Nov 05 2003 I think I like it.
• Charles Sanders (5/21) Nov 05 2003 Good thinking, the alias doesnt like operators though :(.
• Elias Martenson (8/15) Nov 06 2003 Wouldn't this be terribly hard on the parser?
• Carlos Santander B. (30/30) Nov 05 2003 "Matthias Becker" wrote in message
• Walter (7/11) Nov 05 2003 long
• Matthias Spycher (7/18) Nov 05 2003 I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that this p...
• Charles Sanders (12/36) Nov 05 2003 This sounds good ( prefixing with op ), I just dont like the word ass
• Walter (9/14) Nov 05 2003 project
• Sean L. Palmer (13/27) Nov 05 2003 Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early you...
• Matthew Wilson (9/40) Nov 05 2003 Agreed.
• Charles Sanders (6/52) Nov 05 2003 In Other Words. Thirded!
• Walter (7/14) Nov 05 2003 end
• Luna Kid (8/24) Nov 06 2003 Please, never hesitate about this under 1.00 ;)
• Matthew Wilson (7/32) Nov 06 2003 Absolutely. Break now is *always* better than crap later

Matthias Becker <Matthias_member pathlink.com> writes:

I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for a long
time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++ like
operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +=" instead of
"addass".

Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthias Becker says...
I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for a long
time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++ like
operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +=" instead of
"addass".

I have the same question.

Ant

"Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> writes:

I agree on this one also, just some ideas but if not operator foo something
like

__+=__ () { }
__++__ () { }

A little pythonesque ?

C

"Ant" <Ant_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bob4r4$2oo1$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthias Becker says...
I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for


a long
time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++


like
operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +="


instead of
"addass".

 I have the same question.

 Ant

Ant <Ant_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <bobc3l$2rt$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Charles Sanders says...
I agree on this one also, just some ideas but if not operator foo something
like

__+=__ () { }
__++__ () { }

A little pythonesque ?

I think I like it.
(never though I would say that about "_")

Can we do:
alias addass __+=__;
or someting like that?


Ant

"Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> writes:

Good thinking, the alias doesnt like operators though :(.

C

"Ant" <Ant_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bobdkv$56l$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <bobc3l$2rt$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Charles Sanders says...
I agree on this one also, just some ideas but if not operator foo


something
like

__+=__ () { }
__++__ () { }

A little pythonesque ?

 I think I like it.
 (never though I would say that about "_")

 Can we do:
 alias addass __+=__;
 or someting like that?


 Ant

Elias Martenson <elias-m algonet.se> writes:

Charles Sanders wrote:

 I agree on this one also, just some ideas but if not operator foo something
 like
 
 __+=__ () { }
 __++__ () { }
 
 A little pythonesque ?

Wouldn't this be terribly hard on the parser?

Is't __ a legal symbol today? Wouldn't the parser have to scan 2 or 3 
tokens ahead in order to determine if the initial __ is part of an 
expression or an overloading method? That would in turn break LALR?

Granted, I never looked at the D parser so I could be just talking crap 
here. :-)

Elias

"Carlos Santander B." <carlos8294 msn.com> writes:

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for a
long
| time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++
like
| operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +=" instead
of
| "addass".
|
|

Over a year ago (about june-august 2002) there was a votation about this,
and that was the winning convention.

—————————————————————————
Carlos Santander
"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com...
| I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for a
long
| time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++
like
| operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +=" instead
of
| "addass".
|
|

Over a year ago (about june-august 2002) there was a votation about this,
and that was the winning convention.

—————————————————————————
Carlos Santander

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for a

long
 time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++

like
 operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +=" instead

of
 "addass".

The reason is because of the ability to write the reverse operator
overloads, and to make the overloads easilly greppable.

Matthias Spycher <matthias coware.com> writes:

I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that this project
is progressing steadily. Keep up the good work, Walter and everyone else.

As for operator overloading, I like the naming convention, but I think all names
should be prefixed with op, as in opCall to make it clear we are dealing with
operators. Names like add are actually quite common, e.g. in collection classes.

Matthias


In article <bobi49$cde$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group for a

long
 time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the C++

like
 operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +=" instead

of
 "addass".

The reason is because of the ability to write the reverse operator
overloads, and to make the overloads easilly greppable.

"Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> writes:

This sounds good ( prefixing with op ), I just dont like the word ass
everywhere in my code.

C

"Matthias Spycher" <matthias coware.com> wrote in message
news:bobmno$jge$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that this

project
 is progressing steadily. Keep up the good work, Walter and everyone else.

 As for operator overloading, I like the naming convention, but I think all

names
 should be prefixed with op, as in opCall to make it clear we are dealing

with
 operators. Names like add are actually quite common, e.g. in collection

classes.
 Matthias


 In article <bobi49$cde$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Matthias Becker" <Matthias_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bob3sq$2n8p$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I'm sure this was discussed before, but I haven't been on this group



for a
long
 time. So could somebody explain me, why names are used instead of the



C++
like
 operator foo? To me it's much more intuitiv to write "operator +="



instead
of
 "addass".

The reason is because of the ability to write the reverse operator
overloads, and to make the overloads easilly greppable.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matthias Spycher" <matthias coware.com> wrote in message
news:bobmno$jge$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that this

project
 is progressing steadily. Keep up the good work, Walter and everyone else.

Thanks!

 As for operator overloading, I like the naming convention, but I think all

names
 should be prefixed with op, as in opCall to make it clear we are dealing

with
 operators. Names like add are actually quite common, e.g. in collection

classes.

You're right, I've been intending to do this, but I hate upsetting existing
code.

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> writes:

Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early you end
up causing multiple changes instead of just one.

Nobody is doing any mission-critical stuff in D yet anyway, so breaking code
at this phase is not a big deal.  Better to get the language right, than to
be backward compatible with an initial concept that turns out not to work
well in practice.

IOW, don't be afraid to break stuff.

Sean

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:bochg5$1rtc$3 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthias Spycher" <matthias coware.com> wrote in message
 news:bobmno$jge$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that this

 project
 is progressing steadily. Keep up the good work, Walter and everyone


else.
 Thanks!

 As for operator overloading, I like the naming convention, but I think


all
 names
 should be prefixed with op, as in opCall to make it clear we are dealing

 with
 operators. Names like add are actually quite common, e.g. in collection

 classes.

 You're right, I've been intending to do this, but I hate upsetting

existing
 code.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat -stlsoft-dot.-org> writes:

Agreed.

btw, what's IOW? :)

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bockub$2103$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early you

end
 up causing multiple changes instead of just one.

 Nobody is doing any mission-critical stuff in D yet anyway, so breaking

code
 at this phase is not a big deal.  Better to get the language right, than

to
 be backward compatible with an initial concept that turns out not to work
 well in practice.

 IOW, don't be afraid to break stuff.

 Sean

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:bochg5$1rtc$3 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthias Spycher" <matthias coware.com> wrote in message
 news:bobmno$jge$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that this

 project
 is progressing steadily. Keep up the good work, Walter and everyone


 else.
 Thanks!

 As for operator overloading, I like the naming convention, but I think


 all
 names
 should be prefixed with op, as in opCall to make it clear we are



dealing
 with
 operators. Names like add are actually quite common, e.g. in



collection
 classes.

 You're right, I've been intending to do this, but I hate upsetting

 existing
 code.

"Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting comcast.net> writes:

In Other Words.  Thirded!

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat -stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message
news:boclem$21vv$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Agreed.

 btw, what's IOW? :)

 "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> wrote in message
 news:bockub$2103$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early you

 end
 up causing multiple changes instead of just one.

 Nobody is doing any mission-critical stuff in D yet anyway, so breaking

 code
 at this phase is not a big deal.  Better to get the language right, than

 to
 be backward compatible with an initial concept that turns out not to


work
 well in practice.

 IOW, don't be afraid to break stuff.

 Sean

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:bochg5$1rtc$3 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthias Spycher" <matthias coware.com> wrote in message
 news:bobmno$jge$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I've been lurking here for a year or more, enjoying the fact that




this
 project
 is progressing steadily. Keep up the good work, Walter and everyone


 else.
 Thanks!

 As for operator overloading, I like the naming convention, but I




think
 all
 names
 should be prefixed with op, as in opCall to make it clear we are



 dealing
 with
 operators. Names like add are actually quite common, e.g. in



 collection
 classes.

 You're right, I've been intending to do this, but I hate upsetting

 existing
 code.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bockub$2103$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early you

end
 up causing multiple changes instead of just one.

 Nobody is doing any mission-critical stuff in D yet anyway, so breaking

code
 at this phase is not a big deal.  Better to get the language right, than

to
 be backward compatible with an initial concept that turns out not to work
 well in practice.

 IOW, don't be afraid to break stuff.

Ok, I guess it will be in the next version. I really do hate breaking
things.

"Luna Kid" <lunakid neuropolis.org> writes:

 "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> wrote in message
 news:bockub$2103$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early you

 end
 up causing multiple changes instead of just one.

 Nobody is doing any mission-critical stuff in D yet anyway, so breaking

 code
 at this phase is not a big deal.  Better to get the language right, than

 to
 be backward compatible with an initial concept that turns out not to work
 well in practice.

 IOW, don't be afraid to break stuff.

 Ok, I guess it will be in the next version. I really do hate breaking
 things.


Please, never hesitate about this under 1.00 ;)

I guess the D users, who are supposed to be on the
losing side when this happens, would unanimously vote
for "please break our experimental code!" rather than
"please freeze little annoyances and limit our future
production code/style!".

Cheers,
Sz.

"Matthew Wilson" <dmd synesis.com.au> writes:

Absolutely. Break now is *always* better than crap later

"Luna Kid" <lunakid neuropolis.org> wrote in message
news:bodgvp$a4l$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> wrote in message
 news:bockub$2103$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Better to upset it earlier, than later, unless by doing it too early



you
 end
 up causing multiple changes instead of just one.

 Nobody is doing any mission-critical stuff in D yet anyway, so



breaking
 code
 at this phase is not a big deal.  Better to get the language right,



than
 to
 be backward compatible with an initial concept that turns out not to



work
 well in practice.

 IOW, don't be afraid to break stuff.

 Ok, I guess it will be in the next version. I really do hate breaking
 things.


 Please, never hesitate about this under 1.00 ;)

 I guess the D users, who are supposed to be on the
 losing side when this happens, would unanimously vote
 for "please break our experimental code!" rather than
 "please freeze little annoyances and limit our future
 production code/style!".

 Cheers,
 Sz.