jacob navia <jacob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> I added #include <vector.h> and wrapped it in a main function, but
>> this does not compile. Are vectors a work in progress?
>>
<snip vector example>
Right. I read the tutorial. What puzzled me is why you would post
incorrect syntax when explaining something about your own system.
>> At any rate, as far as I can see you agree with me. You don't do it
>> as you seemed to be suggesting with an array that does not decay to a
>> pointer. You just use a new type -- most likely some sort of struct
>> type.
>
> Operator overloading works with new types. This avoid all the problems
> of mixing two data structures that are completely different with the
> same notation.
Then I think you should have replied to Keith by saying that you do
it a different way. He was suggesting something else.
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> ... Operator overloading provides a simple and elegant solution as
>>>>> I have been claiming since several years now.
>>>> I think treating initialisation as assignment and, if I recall
>>>> correctly, *not* treating argument passing as assignment makes your
>>>> operator overloading much less useful than it might have been.
>>>>
>>> All argument passing are assignments in standard C.
>>
>> Yes I know. I was curious as to why they seem to be excluded, since
>> they are, in effect assignments. In other words, having defined
>> assignment for type T from type X, I'd expect to see it used when
>> passing an X to function taking a T.
>>
>
> They are not excluded. I may have bugs in my implementation.
It is not im****tant to me. I was just curious about why it did not
work.
>> However, I now discover that for some reason one can't define
>> assignment between two type T objects.
>
> You mean
> T a,b;
>
> a=b;
>
> ??
Yes.
> The problem is that this is ALREADY defined in the standard
> language, and I tried to stay within C.
But you are extending C. How odd to have decided this useful facility
is not permitted.
>> That seems to exclude lots of
>> useful implementations like reference counting and copy on write. Are
>> the precise semantics of operator overloading and with is and is not
>> permitted written down anywhere?
>>
>
> Yes, in a do***ent that I have posted several times in comp.std.c.
> Nobody answered.
I can't image you mean the same do***ent that I read. That is in no
way a specification. It would be impossible to design a program based
on that information and equally impossible to tell if there is a bug
in the implementation. Maybe I missed the do***ent you mean.
--
Ben.
|
