Re: We have a new standard!

On 01/01/2025 08:33 AM, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 18:25:27 +0200
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> gabbled:

Introduction of format() already showed that C++ committee is aware of
of the fact that "Stroustrup streams" are crap not only relatively to
format/printing facilities of more modern languages, but relatively
to what we have in C as well. std::print() proves that committee is not
only aware of the fact, but finally willing to consider fixes.

>
Plus overloading << and >> was a cretinous decision. There was zero reason
he couldn't have created some new operators to avoid confusion, <<< and >>>
or <= , => for example where such combinations in C would never be legal
syntax anyway.
>

A usual idea being . for concatenation, how about, adding ".=",
default definition a no-op or null-check, that it's close
to having "." for concatenation, ".=".
Being able to overload operators is considered one of
the coolest things about C++ and for figuring out the
arithmetizations and algebraizations and geometrizations
or what it actually makes sense to overload the operators
that they have the same meaning as arithmetic and algebra
or in geometry, has that "." is usual in formal methods
for concatenation while of course it's an accessor or
as it were in C++, dot, then about ".=" whether that
would be a grammar production as it were.
Since l.t. and g.t. are such great brackets as angle
brackets besides, it's because C has them for shift,
that they're arithmetic, why syntactically or lexically
as it may be, using angle brackets for inequalities also
has that in expressions they're as punctuation while
in templates which is so great they're parenthetical
or bracketing, grouping with respect to comma and so on.
Most people might not use usual C++ I/O yet, when the
inputs are like zillions of rows of line records then one
can imagine that it results expressive yet terse code.