|
To me, operator overloading is doing it's job well if I didn't even notice that's what was happening until I really started to think pretty hard about the details. For example, I spent a while staring at assert_eq! statements in Rust docs wondering if an array reference is redundant, like this: assert_eq!(args, &["first", "second"]);
Can I just write: assert_eq!(args, ["first", "second"]);
Yes, I can. But wait, why can I compare these things at all, with or without taking a reference? Because the equality operator == is overloaded to be able to compare args (in this case it's a Vector of OS-specific string types) against this local array of constant strings. And clearly there's no way for the compiler to just magically "know" how to compare those somehow, the standard library explicitly tells it how to do so with an overload (by implementing the trait PartialEq)But it made intuitive sense that you can compare them, I only wondered how it was done after I started specifically investigating this code. At a glance it made sense, and it actually does what I expected. In contrast overloading is silly when it invents a new meaning for the operator. C++ gets a (rightful in my opinion) kicking here for streams, but I can also see an argument for the same claim about using + for string concatenation. Restated: If I see a = b + c in a program, I am OK with a, b and c all really being some complicated object and not just numbers, just so long as intuitively you can add the a object and the b object together and that is in fact what this code does. If that makes no sense, or it doesn't do that, then you shouldn't have overloaded the operator. |