Re: We have a new standard!

On 04/01/2025 12:34, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

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.
 

Did you actually have any points other than "I want the code I write to work the way I want it to work, and sod the rest of the programming world" ?  If that's not it, then what did you mean when you incorrectly claimed that the precedence of << and >> in C++ is inconsistent?
(Note that I am quite happy to accept that you would have preferred a different operator here - that's personal preference, and I've no argument there.)