Clive Page wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Roger Glover wrote:
>
> > one of my C++ classes. He said, "This operator overloading
> > stuff is sure a lightyear or two from Fortran." I said,
> > "Fortran has operator overloading." He said, "Don't try to
>
> You might have pointed out that Fortran has _better_ operator overloading
> facilities.
If I had believed that, I might have.
> In Fortran you can overload existing operators
As in C++.
> or choose
> names for your own, e.g. .IN. or .UNION. if you are handling sets, or
> .LIKE. if you are doing wildcard matching of strings, and so on. And each
> of these names can be overloaded for intrinsic or defined data types and
> can be a binary or unary operator.
No doubt about it, that is a definite advantage for Fortran.
> I admit that C++
> has rather more operators than Fortran,
No doubt about it, that is a definite advantage for C, one that
I think you are seriously underestimating in your subsequent text.
I have found great value in the ability to overload the syntax for
bitwise logic, for pointer reference and dereference, for array
element selection, for function calls, for implicit and explicit
data type conversion.
So, I would score this contest a 1-1 tie.
-------- Cray Research --------- Roger Glover
-- A Silicon Graphics Company -- http://home.cray.com/~glover
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|