The point is that in this particular case, syntax doesn't just fail to
reflect but contradicts the semantics of the operation (i.e. "what it
does"), perhaps in favor of an implementation perspective ("how it
works").
Ben
Logan Capaldo wrote:
> On 9/8/07, Ben Tompkins <
nbitspoken@...> wrote:
>> Giles,
>>
>> While you're at it, how about overloading >> to alias << in the context
>> of
>> class OPERATOR object, as the arrows are obviously pointing the wrong
>> way as
>> it stands :). (See my "dyslexic" posting on this forum - i.e. do a
>> search on "dyslexic" and read my final posting for that thread.
>>
> Arrows? What arrows? Those are bitshift operators.
> Bitshift operators? What bitshift operators? Those are pairs of less
> than and greater than symbols.
--
Posted via
http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
