Robert G. Brown wrote > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, David Mathog wrote: > Unless, of course, one works in a graded (geometric) division algebra... > but yes, I agree. And it isn't much harder to call csum(a,b,c) where > they are complex structs, or do whatever the GSL uses to accomplish the > same thing (I haven't used its complex arithmetic much). > > > That's the point where C++ overloading breaks down, at least for me, > > and a function or #define is easier to work with, something like : > > > > A = B + CROSS_PRODUCT(C,D) >
It would have been interesting if C++ had implemented operator definition instead of operator overloading (ie, redefinition). For instance like: A = B + C <VecX> D Admittedly it looks a bit odd, but when maintaining the code a programmer would see <operation> and know instantly what was happening if they recognized the operator, or would know to go look for the place "VecX" was defined if not. It would also have allowed the code to be somewhat self documenting, as in: triple = A <dot> B <vecX> C The flip side is that the program would need to specifically set operator precedence for operators it defines. It's also more verbose, but that's a good thing in code - I'd much rather read a few more characters than waste time trying to figure out what that "*" is actually doing. In a language aware editor the operator would have been highlighted, making it easier to see them. For all I know operator definition does exist in C++ now - the language is humongous and I certainly am not familiar with some of the more obscure corners. Regards, David Mathog [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manager, Sequence Analysis Facility, Biology Division, Caltech _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
