🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BxtFoF.BGn@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

   > * Programming languages themselves nowadays only let you specify very
   >   limited syntactic extensions, because such extensions are difficult
   >   to scope properly (mind you, the computer and the parser have no
   >   problem with this, it is the humans that can't deal with it).  This
   >   isn't the result of some kind of "language fascism", but of market
   >   forces: languages that have allowed more general syntactic
   >   extensions simply never caught on, presumably because such
   >   extensions were causing more hassle than they were worth.

   I am not at all convinced that this is the case.  I doubt that they were
   left out of C++ because humans could have problems with them; if that is
   the case, a warning should be sufficient.

The problem is that user-defined operators cause problems about which
the compiler cannot warn reliably. For the rationale and some examples
of what can go wrong, see the ARM, p331.

					Thomas.