[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 3.2.x
From: |
Michael Goffioul |
Subject: |
Re: 3.2.x |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:53:11 +0200 |
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 3:32 PM, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
> That would be best, but I'm just saying that I don't think it is
> necessary to have everything perfect for a release. If we require
> that, then we will never have releases.
I didn't mean "perfect", but "complete". Something like the
graphics code without image rendering, or OO support without
operator overloading.
> The OO features that are present now are sufficient for the people who
> supported the work. So far, I haven't seen a lot of people trying to
> use the new features and telling us that they are incomplete.
>
> In any case, operator overloading does work, at least for user-defined
> types. What does not work is overloading operations for built-in
> types, and we have not decided what to do about these operations in
> relation to constant folding in the parser. If anyone is interested
> in the issues, then I think we should start a separate thread for that
> discussion.
Does this mean you can already overload operators like '==' or '*'
for user-defined types? I thought this was not possible yet.
Michael.
- 3.2.x, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/09/22
- Re: 3.2.x, David Bateman, 2008/09/22
- Re: 3.2.x, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/09/22
- Re: 3.2.x, John W. Eaton, 2008/09/22
- Re: 3.2.x, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/09/23
- Re: 3.2.x, Michael Goffioul, 2008/09/23
- Re: 3.2.x, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/09/23
- Re: 3.2.x, John W. Eaton, 2008/09/23
- Re: 3.2.x,
Michael Goffioul <=
- Re: 3.2.x, John W. Eaton, 2008/09/23
- Re: 3.2.x, John W. Eaton, 2008/09/23
- Re: 3.2.x, Jaroslav Hajek, 2008/09/23