Re: We have a new standard!

On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:31:33 +0100
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> gabbled:

On 04/01/2025 11:17, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

On Fri, 03 Jan 2025 11:22:09 -0800
Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> gabbled:

Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org writes:

Don't be obtuse for the sake of arguing.

>
You used the word "expect".  I think you meant that you *want* it to
behave in certain ways.  You know the existing rules, and you strongly
dislike them.

 What I would expect in a language is for mathematical operators to have the
same precendence with numeric types whether overloaded or not. This isn't the

>

case with << and >>.
 

>
In C++, << and >> have the same precedence with all types - just like all the other operators.  The precedences are built into the grammar of the language.
>
Are you suggesting that C++ compilers should somehow have omniscient knowledge of user-defined types to know whether some class is a "numeric" type or some other kind of type which should have different precedences for different operators?  Do you think that would lead to a language that is clearer and easier to learn?

I'm tired of your straw men. If you can't discuss what I'm talking about then maybe stay silent.