5 ms·

I fail to understand how that’s more explicit to be perfectly honest. If it’s hard to resolve where overloads are coming from then that’s a problem but otherwis

by jolux 5y ago

I fail to understand how that’s more explicit to be perfectly honest. If it’s hard to resolve where overloads are coming from then that’s a problem but otherwise it just seems more verbose for no benefit. Addition and multiplication are the operations in use here, why shouldn’t we use their operators to represent them?

gravypod 5y ago
In situations where the output's shape changes based on the operation this can be helpful. auto accumulate = ...; auto a = ... auto b = ... auto result = a*b; for (int row = 0; row < a.rows) { accumulate += result[row] } This expression might be entirely valid when a and b are both 2x2 but then becomes incorrect when there's a different shape in b.
- CyberDildonics 5y ago
  Do you mean type instead of shape? I also don't know what you mean by incorrect. C will also create casts when using two different number types in a math operation.
  - gravypod 5y ago
    For matrix and quaternions multiplication does not output the same type as the input. For example: int a = 1; a + a = 2; (int) a * 2 = 2; (int) auto ma = matrix<2, 4>(); auto mb = matrix<4, 1>(); ma * a is matrix<2, 4> ma * ma is not possible ma * mb is matrix<2, 1> Compilers used to be very bad at telling you what was going on here if you, for example, changed `<2, 4>` to `<3, 4>` or something. g++ now handles it pretty well: https://hastebin.com/idemopikag https://hastebin.com/idemopikag
    - CyberDildonics 5y ago
      Your original comment was about something being incorrect, now you are talking about error messages, but I don't think either has to do with operator overloading.
duped 5y ago
There is more than one definition of a matrix or vector product and whichever one is most obvious can be contextual.
humanrebar 5y ago
I like operator overloading, but it is susceptible to argument dependent lookup while member methods are not. The syntax is literally more explicit about what logic is being called.

by jolux 5y ago

gravypod 5y ago

In situations where the output's shape changes based on the operation this can be helpful. auto accumulate = ...; auto a = ... auto b = ... auto result = a*b; for (int row = 0; row < a.rows) { accumulate += result[row] } This expression might be entirely valid when a and b are both 2x2 but then becomes incorrect when there's a different shape in b.

CyberDildonics 5y ago
Do you mean type instead of shape? I also don't know what you mean by incorrect. C will also create casts when using two different number types in a math operation.
- gravypod 5y ago
  For matrix and quaternions multiplication does not output the same type as the input. For example: int a = 1; a + a = 2; (int) a * 2 = 2; (int) auto ma = matrix<2, 4>(); auto mb = matrix<4, 1>(); ma * a is matrix<2, 4> ma * ma is not possible ma * mb is matrix<2, 1> Compilers used to be very bad at telling you what was going on here if you, for example, changed `<2, 4>` to `<3, 4>` or something. g++ now handles it pretty well: https://hastebin.com/idemopikag https://hastebin.com/idemopikag
  - CyberDildonics 5y ago
    Your original comment was about something being incorrect, now you are talking about error messages, but I don't think either has to do with operator overloading.

duped 5y ago

There is more than one definition of a matrix or vector product and whichever one is most obvious can be contextual.

humanrebar 5y ago

I like operator overloading, but it is susceptible to argument dependent lookup while member methods are not. The syntax is literally more explicit about what logic is being called.