From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-20 09:41:08
At 07:50 AM 9/20/2002, David Abrahams wrote:
>From: "John Maddock" <john_maddock_at_[hidden]>
>
>> I don't really like the operator << usage, personally I would have
>> preferred:
>>
>> path::append(const path&);
>> path::operator+=(const path&);
>> path operator+(const path&, const path&);
>
>Or maybe:
>
>path::operator/=(const path&);
>path operator/(const path&, const path&);
>
>Too cute? I rather like it.
Wonderful! Mirroring the generic grammar is really clever. I wish I had
thought of it myself.
When I realized operator+= and operator+ were confusing (see my reply to
John Maddock's posting), the only other operators I looked at were <<= and
<<. They have been satisfactory in practice, but /= and / will be better.
Thanks,
--Beman