lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On 25/07/2013 14.03, steve donovan wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Lorenzo Donati
< <>> wrote:

    Yes, choosing good names is more an art than a science, but choosing
    good symbols sometimes is akin to witchcraft!

Oh yes!  Where overloading does make sense is implementing generalized
arithemetic operations (e.g. classic 'operations on a field' + - * / ^
with corresponding 'zero' and 'one' meanings) and there we have all the
operators we need.

Yes, really what I also had in mind.

A (great) exception is LPeg which uses operators to create a powerful

Although I know LPeg only superficially (yet - I hope ;-), still its notation mimicks strongly those already established in the CS field (if I'm not mistaken), so this wouldn't contradict my point: operator overloading is great when you already know an operational notation and the underlying semantics (fields operation, EBNF, etc.)

Even in C++, the standard library makes very sparing use of operator
overloading, + for strings, << & >> for stream reading/writing, [] for maps.

I agree with Lorenzo that otherwise an impressive string of symbols is
an attempt to make 'code' (source) look like 'code' (a secret cipher).
Not a good fit for a DSL intended for non-professional programmers!

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\   - against proprietary attachments