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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,65cf1c5c90ed694 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: hymie@panix.com (Hyman Rosen) Subject: Re: Ada vs. C++ (Readability) Date: 1997/09/11 Message-ID: <5v9nrm$8lp@panix.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271703749 References: <341566c7.0@news.uni-ulm.de> <5v4kie$jp1@panix.com> X-Newsposter: trn 4.0-test55 (26 Feb 97) Organization: Panix Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Robert Dewar wrote: ><<> The comma operator has been prettily redefined to cause concatenation>> > >UGH! what a perfect illustration of the dangers of such capabilities. Whenever >someone thinks they have done something clever, as in this case, they have >often created an unreadable, unmaintainable nasty! What exactly is it about 'ray x = 1, 2, 3;' that you find unreadable? The overloading lets you write vector and matrix initializations in a completely transparent fashion. The reason for the existence of operator overloading is exactly so that natural-looking notation does what it appears to do. In any case, this is part of the interface of a library for high-speed computation, and is described clearly in that library's documentation and examples. I would expect that someone maintaining this code would first acquaint themselves with this, if they are to have any chance of success at all.