Re: Simulating new user-defined operators

On Apr 16, 7:18 am, Seungbeom Kim <musip...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> What would you say to
>
>      boost::format("%1% %2%") % x % y
>
> which has absolutely nothing to do with modulus, or even
>
>      std::cout << x << y
>      std::cin  >> x >> y
>
> which has absolutely nothing to do with bit ****ft?
>
> Not necessarily that I agree with the OP's proposal, but your argument
> seems to disapprove creative uses of operator overloading, including
those
> that did turn out to be successful and make it into the position of
being
> a standard idiom, just because they're creative.
>

Michael has a point, all those examples are already "standards", when
you look at them you
will intuitively understand them.
Giving operators a completely new meaning will only confuse.


-- 
      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm
for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]