🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <92255.154216KKEYTE@ESOC.BITNET>, KKEYTE@ESOC.BITNET (Karl Keyte) writes:
|> ...from a posting on 'comp.lang.c++'
|> 
|> In article <1992Sep10.174914.838@taumet.com>, steve@taumet.com (Steve Clamage)
|> says:
|> >
|> The implication of what you say is that it is not possible to overload
|> operators maintaining the correct functionality of the operator.  This
|> indeed means that precedence in overloaded operators cannot be maintained
|> if all operands are simply passed as arguments to the function implementing
|> the operator functionality and evaluated in a language independent order.
|> Imagine commonly used "chain" operators such as && and ::.
|> 
|> If what is described above is correct, and Mr.Clamage clearly has much
|> experience in the area, then I think we have justification for pressing
|> for a change in this area.  If not, I would ask: How does one overload
|> the comma operator while maintaining its attibutes as an operator?
|> 
|> Karl

It seems to me that the ability to look at a comma expression and
infer some semantics from the syntax is a valuable aid 
for program readability. This seems to me like an argument for
not permitting the comma operator to be overloaded. Of course,
the logical extension is to then forbid && and || from being
overloaded as well, but this seems unlikely to happen, unfortunately.

Daniel.Edelson@inria.fr