English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

Browse thread
[OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2008-01-28 (15:41)
From: Brian Hurt <bhurt@j...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] [OSR] OCaml Standard Recommandation Process
Loup Vaillant wrote:

>2008/1/28, Brian Hurt <bhurt@janestcapital.com>:
>>I *hate* operator overloading.  My experience in C++ is for every time
>>this feature is used legitimately (i.e. to implement complex numbers or
>>whatever), it's abused 10 times- and that's ignoring C++'s use of the
>>bit shift operators << and >> for I/O, and the use of + for string
>>concatentation, both of which I'd argue really should be considered
>>abuses, as far as I'm concerned.  And this is ignoring the difficulty of
>>type inference in the presence of overloaded operators.
>>The best way to handle this IMHO is Haskell-style type classes.  Which
>>solves the whole type inference problem, and rules most of what I
>>consider abuses of operator overloading (for example, if you have a '+'
>>operator, you also have to have a '*' operator- and what is "foo" *
>>"bar"?).  But this is a very non-trivial change to the language.
>Err, are you really suggesting type classes to be added in Ocaml?

No.  I was using that to try and kill the idea of operator overloading.