Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!msunews!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!tmx!news.tmx.com.au!tony
From: tony@online.tmx.com.au (Tony Cook)
Subject: Re: Smalltalk @ Operator in C++
Message-ID: <D5MAp5.7qM@online.tmx.com.au>
Organization: The Message eXchange Pty Ltd
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 03:51:04 GMT
References: <3k7rdd$drs@News1.mcs.com> <milodD5KGus.sp@netcom.com> <3kd9cq$phj@News1.mcs.com>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.smalltalk
Lines: 24
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:118199 comp.lang.smalltalk:21879

Jim Fleming (jim.fleming@bytes.com) wrote:
: I guess my original question was not clear. If I have a program
: that uses *operators* to provide better readability, and I happen
: to to desire to convert that program to another language that also
: has "operators" and an extensive set of "operator overloading"
: features, why would I want to give up my notation?

: For example, if I had been using:
: 	a = (x + 3.1416) * y;
: Do I really want to change this to:
: 	a = multiply(add(x,3.1416),y);
: Is that a step forward?
: ----------

: My question has to do with the @ operator.
: In the example, + and * are operators.

Does that mean you expect Smalltalk to be able to use the "C" ?:
operator in the same way as "C"?


-- 
        Tony Cook - tony@online.tmx.com.au
                    100237.3425@compuserve.com
