On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:28 AM Pierre <pierre-...@processus.org> wrote:
> Le 22/03/2022 à 16:14, Sara Golemon a écrit : > > Who's just a hard-nope on userspace operator overloading? If your > reasons > > go beyond foot-gun (and that is a valid reason), could you share what > those > > reasons are? > > > > I am a not so hard-nope against userland operator overloading because > it's magic. My day job is 20% writing code, 30% speaking with clients, > and 50% reading and using community code. Userland operators are not as > explicit as verbose method calls; and you can't ctrl-space an operator > in any existing IDE, it's not obvious at what they does when you read > code using them in most cases, and beyond that, in order to use them, > you have to read an external documentation. Yup. I generally file this all under the 'foot-gun' objection, because at the end of day if you've made an overload interface that makes your code hard to read and reason about, then you *have* foot-gunned yourself. Not dismissing it at all, because the struggle IS real. > And in the end, operators are just sugar for method calls. I don't > dislike writing $c = $a->plus($b) instead of $c = $a + $b, I even found > that there's some kind of elegance behind writing stuff explicitly. > There's no feature in the world that would be blocked by the lack of > operator overloading. > > 100% not going to argue with you on the accuracy of that statement. Of course, something being sugar doesn't mean it's not sweet. ;) -Sara
