With a bit of fiddeling you can use every kind of bracket to basically make function calls in c++

Here are the links to the snippets, all compile and run

Rust: https://godbolt.org/z/bM3d7bG14

OCaml: https://godbolt.org/z/17oMv83zx

C++: https://godbolt.org/z/9Y3WfoE1W

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 8 hours ago (1 child)

Honestly, I'm glad to have them, it can make a number of things simpler. For instance, a program I wrote had a number of duration fields that had to be stored in XML files and updated every once in a while. It was something that had to occur very often in the code: add a value to the duration, set that value in the XML data, and save the XML file. So I created a class that stored the date/time value and a pointer the XML element (it could be assumed that nothing else would be changing the value in the XML file and if it did, then that change should be overwritten) and overloaded the += operator (among others), so then all I needed was to create the DurationField object, and then I could go durationFieldX += time2 - time1 for instance. I could abstract all the logic away and make it very clear and easy to write. Could I have made it so that I have to to durationFieldX.add(time2 - time1)? Of course I could have. But IMO that variant is less neat and less readable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 hours ago

    I'll jump on your unpopular side. With a decent IDE you should be able to point/click and decode what any operator is doing in any context. If I have two vectors, or quaternions, and I want to operate on them, why should I be forced to pass them to a standard function instead of clearly seeing what I'm doing. If you can't be bothered to know the types of your variables in a strongly typed language... IDK.

  • source
  • parent