Re: We have a new standard!

From	Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: We have a new standard!
Date	2025-01-02 14:07 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<vl66j6$3cbce$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <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>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:51:53 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wibbled:
>On 02/01/2025 10:23, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> Now maybe, but when the language was new I don't see the problem in 
>> creating new
>> operators specifically for I/O. After all, he had to create new keywords so
>> why not operators? 
>
>C++ added "::", ".*" and "->*" early on, and C++20 added <=>.  (There 
>are also some new non-punctuation operators - like "new".)  Adding new 
>operators is certainly something that was done, but not done lightly.

When the language is first created thats irrelevant. You add what you need
to add. Overloading << and >> was unnecessary and confusing.

>> cout << 0xFF << 2 << 1234;
>
>That doesn't require brackets (unless you are a fan of smart-arse 
>obfuscated code, and really wanted "cout << (0xff << 2) << 1234;").

So adding brackets to differential shift from stream I/O is obfuscating is it?

>> cout <= OxFF << 2 <= 1234;
>> 
>> is a lot clearer and doesn't.
>
>It is not a lot clearer - it is no clearer at all.  If someone wrote 

Its far clearer and you're just arguing for the sake of it. Extending your
logic why not just have one operator that does everything which varies with
context?

>that (in a parallel universe where <= was used for output streams), I'd 
>ask two questions.  First, is it a typo and the programmer meant to use 
>"<=" instead of "<<" ?  Secondly, I'd wonder what the *beep* the 
>programmer had intended at all, typo or not.

Now you're trolling.

>According to "The Design and Evolution of C++", Unix redirection 
>operators were a major inspiration for the choice of << and >>. 

Perhaps they shouldn't have been. Perl munged shell and C style syntax and 
look what a mess that turned out to be.

>> Why would it?
>> 
>
>It would be a significant change to the syntax and grammar of the 
>language, complicating parsing, analysis and compilation.  And they 

Huh? How would it make parsing MORE complicated? Have you ever written a
parser? 

>being very subjective.  You have said before (and not without reason) 
>that C++ can be hard to learn.  A plethora of new operators would not help.

Having specific operators for specific tasks would actually make it easier
to learn and read in the same way having specific keywords for specific
tasks does. C++ problems due to arn't too many operators.

>> Presumably this is what the new print() and println() functions will do 
>> except they seem to be using python style formatters for [reasons].
>> 
>
>A key point is that the format string should never have to have 
>information about the type of the operands - thus it is type-safe 

It wouldn't need to. A particular formatter could just call some default
object output method just like streams do.

>Could this all have been done from the start of C++?  In theory, yes - 

Thats when I'm refering to.

>in practice no.  std::format and std::print rely on various modern C++ 
>features, such as compile-time evaluation of functions, and are 

Umm, you do realise most compilers already do compile time analysis of 
printf formatters otherwise they wouldn't be able to give warnings about
invalid types being passed.

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