Re: Operator Overloading (Was: In Praise of Strong Typing)

Bartlomiej Golenko wrote:
> Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.spamfilter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> This is not bad code (albeit C++ code)
>> Vector operator+(const Vector &left, const Vector &right) {
>>      Vector result;
>>      for (int i = 0; i < Vector::size; ++i) {
>>         result[i] = left[i] + right[i];
>>      }
>>      return result;
>> }
>> ...
>> myNewVect = someVect + someOtherVect;
> 
> Its pure evil. Consider this:
> 
> myNewVect = someVect * someOtherVect;
> 
> What kind of product is it ? 
> - inner product ? 
> - tensor product ? 
> - cross product ?
> - carthesian product ?
> 
> The fact that YOU know exactly how did you overload operator* does 
> not necessarily mean everyone else does as well.
> 
> Regards, BG
> 
Did I overload the * operator in this example? No.

"*" make sense for vector * scalar or scalar * vector in the general 
case, but the "*" glyph for vector (X) vector doesn't make well-defined 
sense.

-- 
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>