Re: Simulating new user-defined operators

In article <fu2pd8$i3o$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Seungbeom Kim
<musiphil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Michael Aaron Safyan wrote:
> > Using operator% in this manner would never pass my code review,
because
> > this usage has absolutely nothing to do with taking the modulus of a
> > value, and -- therefore -- this usage is unintuitive.
> 
> 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.
   as would any code using boost::spirit as it overloads operators to
simulate EBNF grammars in C++ and is often useful for parsing input
that is not easily done via iostreams only.

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