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: Clayton Weaver <cgweav@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: OO, C++, and something much better!
Date: 1997/02/27
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95q.970227090522.21721A-100000@eskimo.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 221858492
Sender: news@eskimo.com (News User Id)
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eskimo.com
References: <JSA.97Jan16141937@alexandria>
 <5de62l$f13$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au><32FB8B51.1759@concentric.net>
 <vwjsp316ai1.fsf@saturn.dcs.aber.ac.uk><3302DB3E.F70@concentric.net>
 <yf3ybcsm5ce.fsf@sabi.demon.co.uk><JSA.97Feb14201247@alexandria>
 <yf3d8u0380w.fsf@sabi.demon.co.uk><JSA.97Feb17180522@alexandria>
 <yf34tf9csjy.fsf@sabi.demon.co.uk><JSA.97Feb21182801@alexandria>
 <vwjybcd2794.fsf@cassin.dcs.aber.ac.uk> <JSA.97Feb25170653@alexandria>
Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.object
Originator: cgweav@eskimo.com
Date: 1997-02-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


I missed the beginning of this thread, but what's the point here? Isn't
it that operator overloading should not obfuscate the semantic intent of
an expression? Or worse, introduce grammatic indeterminacy in the
intermediate form? The point is not, from what I have seen, that the true
semantic implications of use of an operator can be traced by backtracking
through the code, but rather that the operator should make it clear in the
language implementation or choice of expression from many alternatives
(that all express the same operation-on-args) what semantic production is
invoked by an operator in context.

The inexact mapping (and this is exactly what it is) from mathematics to
computation in both directions appears to me to be debating the
applicability or clarity of expression of an example rather than the
central issues of the original discussion.

Regards, Clayton Weaver  cgweav@eskimo.com  (Seattle)