[915] in java-interest
Re: overloading of operators
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John D. Mitchell)
Tue Aug 15 10:32:45 1995
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 1995 23:13:10 -0700
From: "John D. Mitchell" <johnm@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
To: jeremy@suede.sw.oz.au (Jeremy Fitzhardinge)
CC: parrt@parr-research.com (Terence John Parr), java-interest@java.sun.com
In-reply-to: <9508150201.AA26310@suede.sw.oz.au>
Jeremy Fitzhardinge writes:
> > Yeah, count me as a "no way Jose'" on operator overloading. Down
> > with C++ where any random stream of ASCII chars is a program. Long live
> > the simplicity of Java!!!! I hate C++ because you can never tell what
> > you're reading without scanning the entire class hierarchy.
>
> Yes, and a change "way up there" can affect code everywhere. At least
> Java doesn't have implicit conversions using class constructors...
Well, I've harangued about this in the past in too many forumns to recall
so I'll... Just say NO to operator overloading.
[...Weird 'new' precedence in Java should be changed...]
> You can count me. Cleaner Syntax For A Better Tomorrow.
I concur though don't exchange cleaner syntax for messier semantics.
> [Hm. Seems that most implementors don't like the existing syntax
> apart from the Sun folk, who've already implemented it...
> Must be one of those parser generators vs. hand-written parser
> things. I suspect using a hand-written parser does lead one to
> do little localized syntax changes without necessarily thinking
> about what it does to the overall syntax.]
IMHO, hand built parsers should be outlawed in public. There is no area
in which they are better than generated parsers (well, assuming you're
using a good parser generator :-).
Take care,
John
-
Note to Sun employees: this is an EXTERNAL mailing list!
Info: send 'help' to java-interest-request@java.sun.com
