• Jarrett Billingsley (7/7) Jun 20 2006 By that, I mean just the "regular" form of opIn, and only allow overload...
• Andrei Khropov (4/13) Jun 21 2006 I agree
• Bill Baxter (9/16) Jun 21 2006 What if you had a Set class and you wanted to override its opIn's to ret...

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

By that, I mean just the "regular" form of opIn, and only allow overloading 
of opIn_r.

Why?  Well, 'in' doesn't make sense if you reverse it; that is, "array in 4" 
makes no sense while "4 in array" does.

Just from a cursory glance at opover.c, this should not be hard to 
implement - just have InExp::opId() return NULL.  It doesn't look like 
anything depends on the result of opId() being non-NULL. 

"Andrei Khropov" <andkhropov nospam_mtu-net.ru> writes:

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 By that, I mean just the "regular" form of opIn, and only allow overloading
 of opIn_r.
 
 Why?  Well, 'in' doesn't make sense if you reverse it; that is, "array in 4"
 makes no sense while "4 in array" does.
 
 Just from a cursory glance at opover.c, this should not be hard to implement
 - just have InExp::opId() return NULL.  It doesn't look like anything depends
 on the result of opId() being non-NULL.

I agree


-- 
AKhropov

Bill Baxter <Bill_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <e7a9gf$119s$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Jarrett Billingsley says...
By that, I mean just the "regular" form of opIn, and only allow overloading 
of opIn_r.

Why?  Well, 'in' doesn't make sense if you reverse it; that is, "array in 4" 
makes no sense while "4 in array" does.

Just from a cursory glance at opover.c, this should not be hard to 
implement - just have InExp::opId() return NULL.  It doesn't look like 
anything depends on the result of opId() being non-NULL. 

What if you had a Set class and you wanted to override its opIn's to return
something about set membership?  "set in array" and "array in set" both make
perfect sense in that case.  One asks if the 'set' is a subset of elements in
'array', the other asks if the elements in 'array' are a subset of 'set'.  If
you only have the ability to override methods on your Set class then you'll want
both opIn and opIn_r to make that work.

If it doesn't make sense for a particular class then just don't provide the
overload.  Same goes for all overloadable operators.