Re: Updated version of futures library

>> > Personally, I don't particularly want to see a future
>> > library overload any logical operators at all, or at least have the
>> > overloads sequestered in separate headers that aren't included by any
>> > of the other future library headers.
>>
>> That's a matter of taste, for sure. But would you mind telling us why
>> you don't want to have these? Your opinion sounds to be quite strong, so
>> you must have good reasons!
>
> It's the obvious reason.  I don't think taking a function with a 2 letter
> name, which is already overloaded, and adding a new set of overloads to it
> which have semantics completely unrelated to the existing overloads is a
> desirable or aesthetically pleasing interface.  No one would even consider
> doing such a thing if the function wasn't an operator.  I guess I just
> don't find operator syntax as compelling a feature as others.