From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5282BC69 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 23:10:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu (outgoing-mail.its.caltech.edu [131.215.239.19]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l28MACRA021688 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 23:10:13 +0100 Received: from earth-dog.caltech.edu (earth-dog [192.168.1.3]) by earth-ox-postvirus (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F62636F37; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:10:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (adsl-66-218-63-93.dslextreme.com [66.218.63.93]) by wood-ox.its.caltech.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A262F0B4; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:09:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <45F089B6.9030005@cs.caltech.edu> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 14:09:58 -0800 From: Michael Vanier User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20061112 SeaMonkey/1.5a MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian Hurt Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Operator overloading References: <3D1E4D9CA9BCE04D8F2B55F203AE4CE30666AB74@selma.roomandboard.com> <45F080C8.3070307@janestcapital.com> In-Reply-To: <45F080C8.3070307@janestcapital.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45F089C4.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; vanier:01 mvanier:01 overloading:01 pointers:01 pointer:01 overloading:01 complicates:01 pointers:01 ocaml:01 beginner's:01 ocaml:01 bug:01 beginners:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 Pointers were perhaps a bad example, since pointer arithmetic is incompatible with safe languages. I see no such concern with respect to operator overloading, though there are certainly many ways in which it complicates the language. This is one of those never-ending arguments that will never get settled to anyone's satisfaction; it's a matter of personal preference. Why don't we start arguing about static versus dynamic typing while we're at it? Mike Brian Hurt wrote: > Tom wrote: > >> >> Albeit Brian Hurt's comment about operator overloading making more >> harm than good in C++, I believe that overloading simply has to be >> used appropriately - it's like saying pointers are bad because they >> can introduce memory leaks and null references, and division is bad >> because it can raise Division_by_zero exceptions. >> > So maybe we should introduce pointers into Ocaml? > > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: > http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list > Archives: http://caml.inria.fr > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs