Re:Goodbye C++, Hello C
by jolux on Saturday June 26, 2021 @12:00AM
(#27638975)
I fail to understand how that’s more explicit to be perfectly honest. If it’s hard to resolve where overloads are coming from then that’s a problem but otherwise it just seems more verbose for no benefit. Addition and multiplication are the operations in use here, why shouldn’t we use their operators to represent them?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
In situations where the output's shape changes based on the operation this can be helpful.
auto accumulate = ...;
auto a = ...
auto b = ...
auto result = a*b;
for (int row = 0; row < a.rows) {
accumulate += result[row]
}
Re:Goodbye C++, Hello C
by CyberDildonics on Saturday June 26, 2021 @12:02PM
(#27642993)
Do you mean type instead of shape? I also don't know what you mean by incorrect. C will also create casts when using two different number types in a math operation.
For matrix and quaternions multiplication does not output the same type as the input.
For example:
int a = 1;
a + a = 2; (int)
a * 2 = 2; (int)
auto ma = matrix<2, 4>();
auto mb = matrix<4, 1>();
ma * a is matrix<2, 4>
ma * ma is not possible
ma * mb is matrix<2, 1>
Re:Goodbye C++, Hello C
by CyberDildonics on Saturday June 26, 2021 @04:17PM
(#27645439)
Your original comment was about something being incorrect, now you are talking about error messages, but I don't think either has to do with operator overloading.
There is more than one definition of a matrix or vector product and whichever one is most obvious can be contextual.
Re:Goodbye C++, Hello C
by humanrebar on Saturday June 26, 2021 @08:31AM
(#27641290)
I like operator overloading, but it is susceptible to argument dependent lookup while member methods are not. The syntax is literally more explicit about what logic is being called.