From: "Alejandro R. Mosteo" <alejandro@mosteo.com>
Subject: Re: Redefining "in" "operator"
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 18:41:42 +0100
Date: 2018-02-05T18:41:42+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <p5a50m$dab$1@dont-email.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <p5a0k1$9tk$1@dont-email.me>
On 05/02/18 17:26, Alejandro R. Mosteo wrote:
> It just dawned on me that I could want to define an "in" function for a
> couple of my types, but this is not allowed.
>
> I tried searching but the term is so general that I only find unrelated
> threads, so here it goes:
>
> Are there special reasons not to allow something like that? I think "in"
> is not an operator in the Ada RM sense but now I'm curious why the
> special treatment.
I see now, thanks everybody for the quick answers!
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-05 17:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-05 16:26 Redefining "in" "operator" Alejandro R. Mosteo
2018-02-05 16:39 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2018-02-06 0:48 ` Randy Brukardt
2018-02-06 18:07 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2018-02-05 16:43 ` J-P. Rosen
2018-02-05 17:23 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2018-02-05 17:41 ` Alejandro R. Mosteo [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox