Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #121384
| Path | csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: We have a new standard! |
| Date | Thu, 02 Jan 2025 13:58:34 -0800 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Lines | 59 |
| Message-ID | <87pll4sws5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> (permalink) |
| References | <C++-20241227154547@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <20250101182527.00004b2f@yahoo.com> <vl3qpk$2rr3n$1@dont-email.me> <vl5dst$37mo5$2@dont-email.me> <vl5lvf$39de4$1@dont-email.me> <vl625a$3bj9b$1@dont-email.me> <vl66j6$3cbce$1@dont-email.me> <vl6gbr$3e4rd$1@dont-email.me> <vl6hj7$3ecmh$1@dont-email.me> |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain |
| Injection-Date | Thu, 02 Jan 2025 22:58:35 +0100 (CET) |
| Injection-Info | dont-email.me; posting-host="a6ca1a2a8a1a56868adae0581a86a375"; logging-data="3697068"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18UFEvbcdxNIXNDwt3357xy" |
| User-Agent | Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:6N2Y6RkEFtDbYQGJ1TFDC6FmN0k= sha1:pvH3m5wwmQovHMACuO9Rh5Lau/U= |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.c++:121384 |
Show key headers only | View raw
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?
>>The meaning of "cout << 0xFF << 2 << 1234;" is obviously a chain of
>>outputs - output 0xff, output 2, output 1234. Regardless of the
>
> 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.
> Eg I expect the output to be 256 here:
>
> std::cout << 255 + 1 << std::endl;
Which it is.
> Yet here there is no maths involved:
>
> std::cout << 255 << 1 << std::endl;
>
> Thats perverse.
Apparently your expectation was incorrect.
I understand that the precedence of "<<" and ">>" can be slightly
confusing when they're used for I/O -- but it's fairly rare for
operators with lower precedence than the shift operators to be used in
I/O. Sure, you can write:
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?
[...]
--
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