Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Odd compiler behaviour?
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 20:38:47 +0000
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <87bn6ou2lk.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com>
References: <nb3t47$19o6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <20160301061135.783@kylheku.com> <nb49gp$2ha$1@gioia.aioe.org> <lny4a2w3iz.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <87h9gqb0lj.fsf@mantic.terraraq.uk> <barmar-FBFA60.13142001032016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> <878u22aua9.fsf@mantic.terraraq.uk> <barmar-7AB90A.15400901032016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> <87wpplaojy.fsf@mantic.terraraq.uk> <barmar-A604F3.17081701032016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> <slrnndlt9s.5q5.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> <20160305152935.13fa72e4c5e160164248c79c@speakeasy.net> <nbjj3m$4a6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <871t7ldt2g.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> <nbmlr6$l5i$1@gioia.aioe.org> <87y49tt2dw.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> <barmar-D7F60B.10421508032016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: individual.net L/B0HxXDEkEHgbY0pjvlkALF5ivPxCO54HaDZFBXXuDM3idr0=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kJRwbTxqev3T9Dmr7cn1UqZIQOE= sha1:/dxarUPmY747WsIWLbRYP2cGvG4=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)
Xref: csiph.com comp.unix.programmer:8065 comp.lang.c:83493

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>  Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> wrote:
>> spud@potato.field writes:

[...]

>> > To overload the operator and then do something else is abusing the
>> > intent of overloading and confuses maintenance coders.
>> 
>> In particular, both C++ and Perl support associating arbitrary (to some
>> degree) meanings with operator symbols when applied to objects of
>> user-defined types and this also happens to be the mathematical
>> definition.
>
> Didn't I say way back when that this is one of the big differences 
> between C and C++? Programmable operator overloading means that 
> intuitive notions about the operators are less likely to be correct.

My intuitive notion of the meaning of + is "x turned by 45 degrees"
... but - oh wait - that's based on something else I had to memorize ...