On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:57:34 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
>> Robin Vowels <robin.vowels@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, September 16, 2021 at 10:37:57 PM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 2:47:53 AM UTC-6, The Natural
>>>> Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hence 'object oriented' rubbish and 'operator overloading' - sheesh
>>>>> the worst idea EVER. Making a expresssion symbol dependent on the
>>>>> context in which its being used.
>>>>
>>>> In FORTRAN, + - * and / work with INTEGER, REAL, DOUBLE PRECISION, and
>>>> COMPLEX variables equally well.
>>>> So operator overloading is not a bad idea - if it is used properly,
>>>> instead of abused.
>>>
>>> And anyway, that isn't operator overloading.
>>
>> Yes it is, as soon as the code required for the operation depends
>> on the data types on either side of the operator it's overloaded. It's just
>> done at the compiler level and not made extensible by the programmer in
>> FORTRAN. Making it extensible by the programmer does of course open up all
>> sorts of possibilities for abuse - but it is nonetheless useful when used
>> appropriately to aid code clarity. For example if I happen to be writing
>> code that deals with vectors a lot it would be useful to be able to add
>> them and multiply them by scalars without wordy function calls obscuring
>> the logic.
>>
>
>You could always use PL/I. (or APL, I suppose)

Numpy, which overloads the standard Python operators to give
functionality close to that of APL.

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 18:57:34 -0700
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
> > Yes it is, as soon as the code required for the operation
> > depends on the data types on either side of the operator it's
> > overloaded. It's just done at the compiler level and not made
> > extensible by the programmer in FORTRAN. Making it extensible by the
> > programmer does of course open up all sorts of possibilities for abuse
> > - but it is nonetheless useful when used appropriately to aid code
> > clarity. For example if I happen to be writing code that deals with
> > vectors a lot it would be useful to be able to add them and multiply
> > them by scalars without wordy function calls obscuring the logic.
> >
>
> You could always use PL/I. (or APL, I suppose)

I could, perhaps depending on policies, but vectors were
just an example of something not supported by the language where using
operators makes sense, there are many others and no language supports them
all unless it allows programmer defined operator overloading.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

maus <maus@dmaus.org> writes:

> The Welsh have a better attitude. There is something in Finnish at the
> moment, I think, about making English a second official language.

> As far as I can make out, Tolkien's books have a kinda Finnish undertone.

This is a well known fact among those who have studied JRRT's languages and his
writings about them, as well as his biography.

One of his Elvish languages' grammatical and phonoligical features were greatly
influenced by Finnish.

Another was greatly influenced by Welsh in the same way, as it happens.

--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Sunday, September 5, 2021 at 4:16:55 PM UTC-6, John Levine wrote:
>> According to Dennis Boone <d...@ihatespam.msu.edu>:
>
>> >Hah. You can write bad code in any language, and CObOL gives you
>> >plenty of rope. ALTER clause anyone?
>
>> No worse than the Fortran assigned GOTO. Sensible programmers stopped using them
>> as soon as there were other ways to write subroutines, like about 1962.
>
> Actually, the ALTER mechanism in COBOL is much, much worse than the assigned
> GOTO in FORTRAN, since there is no evidence in COBOL at the site of the GOTO
> being altered that an alteration has taken place.

AT (used for debugging purposes in early FORTRAN) actually implemented
come-from.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 09:19:59 -0000 (UTC)
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> wrote:

> AT (used for debugging purposes in early FORTRAN) actually implemented
> come-from.

XSLT control flow is best described as come-from with wild cards.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/