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: 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: 1108a1,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,b87849933931bc93 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Definition of "operator" (was: OO, C++, and something much better!) Date: 1997/02/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 220496621 Distribution: world References: <33091940.55A8@concentric.net> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object Date: 1997-02-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <1997Feb19.163312.4426@schbbs.mot.com> shang@corp.mot.com (David L. Shang) writes: > In article <33091940.55A8@concentric.net> Alan Lovejoy > writes: > > > The point is to get rid of inconsistency and to establish the agreed > > upon usage of common terms--and perhaps to also formally define them, if > > possible. > > > > 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). /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com