stt@ada-uts (11/06/86)
It is illegal to overload "and then" and "or else" (as these are "operations" but not "operators"), but it is perfectly legal to overload the logical operators "and," "or," and "xor." The only restriction about overloading operators has to do with "=" and "/=." You may not separately overload "/=," and you may only define "=" for limited types, or by renaming another "=." Thanks to generics, you can in fact define "=" for any type by doing so in an instantiation of a generic passing the type as the actual matching a formal limited private type.
jeff@slovax.UUCP (11/12/86)
> Nf-ID: #R:ucbvax.berkeley.edu:-114600:ada-uts:4700083:000:555 > Nf-From: ada-uts!stt Nov 6 10:47:00 1986 > > > It is illegal to overload "and then" and "or else" (as these > are "operations" but not "operators"), but it is > perfectly legal to overload the logical operators "and," > "or," and "xor." > > The only restriction about overloading operators has to > do with "=" and "/=." You may not separately overload "/=," > and you may only define "=" for limited types, or by renaming > another "=." Thanks to generics, you can in fact > define "=" for any type by doing so in an instantiation > of a generic passing the type as the actual matching a formal > limited private type. Pardon me, no flames intended to the poster, but I just HAD to bring up a point with such a good example available. I know that somebody somewhere, with nothing better to do, decided what the "correct" method of punctuating near (") quotation marks would be. The poster has "correctly" followed the "rules", and I am not finding any fault with the poster. My point is this: why put (,) commas and (.) periods, or any other punctuation for that matter, within a technical quotation? for example: > perfectly legal to overload the logical operators "and," > "or," and "xor." Am I to assume that the poster is referring to (and,), (or,) and (xor.) ? > do with "=" and "/=." You may not separately overload "/=," > ... > another "=." Thanks to generics, you can in fact Likewise, are we looking at (/=.) and (/=,) ? Context and careful re-reading help the reader to understand what is really being communicated, but is it REALLY necessary? I admit, in this particular case, the above assumptions are rediculous. There are, however, many topics that could be discussed, including a few languages, where these assumptions would be quite reasonable. Again, there are absolutely NO FLAMES INTENDED toward the poster, just FLAMES for the rules. Thanks for listening. I feel better now.