Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
RE: [Caml-list] Operator overloading
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Michael Vanier <mvanier@c...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Operator overloading
Pointers were perhaps a bad example, since pointer arithmetic is incompatible 
with safe languages.  I see no such concern with respect to operator 
overloading, though there are certainly many ways in which it complicates the 

This is one of those never-ending arguments that will never get settled to 
anyone's satisfaction; it's a matter of personal preference.  Why don't we start 
arguing about static versus dynamic typing while we're at it?


Brian Hurt wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>> Albeit Brian Hurt's comment about operator overloading making more 
>> harm than good in C++, I believe that overloading simply has to be 
>> used appropriately - it's like saying pointers are bad because they 
>> can introduce memory leaks and null references, and division is bad 
>> because it can raise Division_by_zero exceptions.
> So maybe we should introduce pointers into Ocaml?
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> Archives:
> Beginner's list:
> Bug reports: