|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 09:32:03 -0700 From: Michael Lorton <mlorton@eshop.com> To: java-interest@java.sun.com In-Reply-To: Greg Wilkins's message of Wed, 28 Jun 1995 17:57:20 +1000 <199506280757.RAA09646@ostrich.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> [Greg Wilkins <gregw@ind.tansu.com.au> writes] While there are many examples where operator overloading makes code more readable, there are also many many examples were operator overloading introduces subtle bugs. Once you have operator overloading, your really need automatic conversions to make the sugar look really nice, I would strenuously disagree here. Automatic conversions are a tool of the devil. :-)> then you really need a degree in pure maths to work out the group theory for any non-trival classes that you want to use these features for. If it looks like * it needs to act like *, so the group of all your classes instances needs to be reflexive, transitive, have a unity instance etc. etc. I disagree here also. If I were writing a Matrix class, I would very much like to overload the *. I would certainly NOT want reflexivity, since bA != Ab. Moreover, the same argument could apply against methods with operator-like names (multiply() or add()). Any tool can be misused. The question is does the potential cost of abuse exceed (or even approach) the benefit of proper use. In the case of automatic conversion, I agree with the growing consensus that says yes. I am not convinced about operator overloading; group theory is not going to convince me. M. - Note to Sun employees: this is an EXTERNAL mailing list! Info: send 'help' to java-interest-request@java.sun.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |