Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: We have a new standard! Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:13:51 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 65 Message-ID: References: <20250101182527.00004b2f@yahoo.com> <87pll4sws5.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2025 11:13:52 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="96451c9a48325b5d1183f33759cc6cc5"; logging-data="4058372"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19x/rO7/jJ870Jwm2qZRsRD" Cancel-Lock: sha1:VP6cTXy8LfMrpDQwh1i880tq6RI= Bytes: 3427 On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 13:58:34 -0800 Keith Thompson wibbled: >Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org writes: >> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:54:18 +0100 >> David Brown wibbled: >>>On 02/01/2025 15:07, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote: >>>> Overloading << and >> was unnecessary and confusing. >>> >>>Disagreed. I really don't think it was problematic. Nor did any of the >>>/many/ people who were involved in the design of C++. Remember, the >>>language and library has always been discussed, prototyped, and tested >>>by lots of people before being released. Stroustrup was the main >>>language designer, but he was far from alone. >> >> Committees often don't come up with optimal solutions. Using the same >operator >> for 2 entirely different operations unrelated in either concept or function >> when there was no need to was illogical and perverse. > >Like "*" for multiplication and pointer dereferencing? Like "&" for >bitwise "and" and address-of? Like "-" for negation and subtraction? As you well know they derived from C and couldn't be changed. However I don't believe using "&" for references was the best choice but at least it sort of makes sense in context. >> I would expect all mathematical operations to work in EXACTLY the same way >> in an output stream. > >I would expect << and >> to have their usual precedence whether >overloaded or not. You're missing the point. >> Eg I expect the output to be 256 here: >> >> std::cout << 255 + 1 << std::endl; > >Which it is. No shit. >> std::cout << 255 << 1 << std::endl; >> >> Thats perverse. > >Apparently your expectation was incorrect. Don't be obtuse for the sake of arguing. > std::cout << n = 42 << "\n"; > >and it won't compile, but parentheses are an easy fix and a good idea >anyway. > >How often has it really been a problem for you? Given I do a lot of bit twiddling low level code, more than you might expect. And its not a problem per se as it can be solved with brackets, I'm simply saying it was a daft design decision to overload << and >> when Bjarne could have easily created new operators at no cost. There was NO requirement in this case to be compatible with C because streams were C++ specific functionality.