C++23: The Next C++ Standard

Re:C++23: The Next C++ Standard by AndrewStephens on Tuesday July 11, 2023 @02:11PM (#36684945)

Would you advocate getting rid of operators altogether?

    3.times(2).plus(7)

Some things just lend themselves to being expressed in terms of simple operators.

    (*smartPtr)->methodOnWrapperClass();

That is still using the overloaded SmartPtr<>::operator*() method.

I understand the viewpoint that operator overload is syntactic sugar for things that can easily be done another way, I just disagree that costs outweigh the benefits.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++23: The Next C++ Standard by coldpie on Tuesday July 11, 2023 @02:15PM (#36685030)

> Would you advocate getting rid of operators altogether?

Of course not. It makes sense for built-in types, as everyone reading the code can be assumed to know them.

> That is still using the overloaded SmartPtr<>::operator*() method.

Good catch ;)

> I just disagree that costs outweigh the benefits.

Yah, I think that's the disagreement. My feeling is there's a teeny, tiny handful of appropriate places for it (almost entirely math) and it opens up a pandora's box of terrible decisions that programmers clearly find irresistible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++23: The Next C++ Standard by JonChesterfield on Tuesday July 11, 2023 @08:18PM (#36688894)

Are you suggesting

  3.times(2).plus(7)

as a good thing or a bad thing? I see a.equals(b) occasionally from the first argument is magic crowd but 3.times is novel here. I'm really unsure what the order of operations is for that expression.

[ Parent | on HN ]