🚀 go-pugleaf

> I agree that overloaded operators can be nice.  However, they also can
> be easily abused.  A popular one is to use + for string concatenation
> "'cause it's just like you're adding the two strings together."  Well,
> you aren't adding them you are concatenating them.  If "ab" + "cd" is
> "abcd" then 123 + 456 must =be123456, right?  :-)

Dont get this. "123" + "456" would indeed equal "123456"
	        123 + 456 = 579
A compiler is in real trouble if cant distinquish types. The parsing of
this as I see it is:
	without op overloading
	   a := "123" + "456"  should result in error message.
	with op overloading and + redef imported from string module then
	compiler uses the + redefinition when it discovers a,"123" and "456"
	are strings.

> 
> And as for complex numbers, if you have a good compiler that allows any
> type to be returned as a function result then:
> 
> a := Complex.Add(b,c);
> 
> is much clearer than your example (though in this case still not as nice
> as a:=b+c).


Better but what is status of structured returns in the proposed standard while
we are about it?

	Phil