From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: shang@corp.mot.com (David L. Shang) Subject: Re: Definition of "operator" (was: OO, C++, and something much better!) Date: 1997/02/24 Message-ID: <1997Feb24.144102.8669@schbbs.mot.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 221231631 Sender: news@schbbs.mot.com (SCHBBS News Account) References: Organization: MOTOROLA Reply-To: shang@corp.mot.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1997-02-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes: > In article <1997Feb19.163312.4426@schbbs.mot.com> shang@corp.mot.com (David L. Shang) writes: > > Have a look at Transframe's expression design. Just a few syntax rules > > result in a more powerful and flexible expressions than C++'s. The > > definition of operators in Transframe is simple, consistent and > > user-definable. > > You've completely missed the point. That any _particular_ language > has a so called "consistent use" of the terms "operator" and > "operation" is irrelevant. After all, any formally defined one will > and _most_ standards defined ones will (as these two sets are not in > a subset relation). > Please be specific. Few people can understand what you stated above, I guess. Perhaps, we are talking about different things. David Shang