🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 458E@bridge.com,  Rod Burman <rodb@bridge.com> writes:
>
>> >>                   Table 4--alternative representations
>> >
>> >>            +------------------------------------------------+
>> >>            |and      and_eq   bitand   bitor   compl    not |
>> >>            |not_eq   or       or_eq    xor     xor_eq       |
>> >>            +------------------------------------------------+
>> 		YET
>> >This leads to ^ another question:
>
>Is the committee thinking of some how linking these with operator 
>overloading?
>	e.g.	operator^() == operator.xor() xor operator_xor()
>
>or do you just use trigraphs for this particular usage?

When you write
	operator^()
that phrase consists of four tokens:
	operator  ^  (  )

The "^" token can be spelled in three ways:
	^
	xor
	??'
All three spellings are equivalent, and it doesn't matter which you use
when referring to the operator. So you could write:

	int operator^(const T&, const T&); // declare function
	T a, b, c, d, e, f;
	...
	int i = a ^ b;			// call function 3 times
	int j = c ??' d;
	int k = operator xor(e, f);
	...
	int operator??'(const T& t1, const T& t2) { ... } implement function

The only time a difference shows up in the token spellings is if you
"stringize" the token via a "#" in a macro.
	# ^   becomes "^"
	# ??' becomes "^"	// because ??' is converted to ^ before anything else
	# xor becomes "xor"
---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com



[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy is
  summarized in http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
]