Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #121401
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: We have a new standard! |
| Date | 2025-01-03 11:22 -0800 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <87h66fsnxa.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <vl66j6$3cbce$1@dont-email.me> <vl6gbr$3e4rd$1@dont-email.me> <vl6hj7$3ecmh$1@dont-email.me> <87pll4sws5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vl8d8v$3rr84$1@dont-email.me> |
Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org writes:
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 13:58:34 -0800
> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wibbled:
>>Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org writes:
>>> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:54:18 +0100
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>>>>On 02/01/2025 15:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>>>>> Overloading << and >> was unnecessary and confusing.
>>>>
>>>>Disagreed. I really don't think it was problematic. Nor did any of the
>>>>/many/ people who were involved in the design of C++. Remember, the
>>>>language and library has always been discussed, prototyped, and tested
>>>>by lots of people before being released. Stroustrup was the main
>>>>language designer, but he was far from alone.
>>>
>>> Committees often don't come up with optimal solutions. Using the
>>> same operator for 2 entirely different operations unrelated in
>>> either concept or function when there was no need to was illogical
>>> and perverse.
>>
>>Like "*" for multiplication and pointer dereferencing? Like "&" for
>>bitwise "and" and address-of? Like "-" for negation and subtraction?
>
> As you well know they derived from C and couldn't be changed. However I don't
> believe using "&" for references was the best choice but at least it sort of
> makes sense in context.
>
>>> I would expect all mathematical operations to work in EXACTLY the same way
>>> in an output stream.
>>
>>I would expect << and >> to have their usual precedence whether
>>overloaded or not.
>
> You're missing the point.
No, I get your point. I just disagree.
>>> Eg I expect the output to be 256 here:
>>>
>>> std::cout << 255 + 1 << std::endl;
>>
>>Which it is.
>
> No shit.
>
>>> std::cout << 255 << 1 << std::endl;
>>>
>>> Thats perverse.
>>
>>Apparently your expectation was incorrect.
>
> Don't be obtuse for the sake of arguing.
You used the word "expect". I think you meant that you *want* it to
behave in certain ways. You know the existing rules, and you strongly
dislike them.
>> std::cout << n = 42 << "\n";
>>
>>and it won't compile, but parentheses are an easy fix and a good idea
>>anyway.
>>
>>How often has it really been a problem for you?
>
> Given I do a lot of bit twiddling low level code, more than you might
> expect. And its not a problem per se as it can be solved with brackets, I'm
> simply saying it was a daft design decision to overload << and >> when Bjarne
> could have easily created new operators at no cost. There was NO requirement
> in this case to be compatible with C because streams were C++ specific
> functionality.
I think you overstate the problems introduced by overloading <<
and >>. I accept that you dislike them, and I'm not going to change
your opinion. I suggest that there's probably not much point in
discussing it further.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-01 18:25 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-01 16:33 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-01 09:41 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-02 08:06 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-02 09:23 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-02 13:51 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-02 14:07 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-02 17:54 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-02 17:15 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 13:58 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-03 10:13 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 11:22 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 10:17 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-04 12:31 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 11:34 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-04 14:01 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 15:49 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 17:42 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-02 15:20 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-03 13:43 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 08:11 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-03 16:33 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 10:50 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-03 16:09 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 11:53 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-03 17:10 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 12:14 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 10:13 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-03 18:17 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 13:58 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-04 12:39 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-04 09:56 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-03 21:46 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 21:06 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 18:32 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-04 20:08 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-04 14:46 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 07:14 +0800
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-06 08:38 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-07 08:40 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-07 14:04 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-01-08 14:52 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 13:31 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-09 08:39 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-07 21:32 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 17:49 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-03 17:12 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Sam <sam@email-scan.com> - 2025-01-03 11:56 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-02 17:35 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-02 17:57 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-02 19:55 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 13:40 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-03 09:42 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-02 13:38 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-01-03 10:09 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 11:19 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2025-01-04 10:15 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-01 22:43 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-02 07:56 +0100
Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-02 00:39 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-02 12:31 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-02 14:59 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-02 15:50 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-07 21:15 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-08 08:44 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-08 11:44 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-01-08 15:04 -0500
Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-14 08:49 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2025-01-14 09:12 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-14 19:53 +0200
Re: We have a new standard! "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-01-08 14:43 -0800
Re: We have a new standard! scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-02 20:51 +0000
Re: We have a new standard! Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-02 16:47 +0200
csiph-web